Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Not Scooby]

Thanks - I try!

Curiously, I write quite a lot of consultancy reports which contain analysis of data; I'm one of the few people who insists on treating the word "data" as a plural noun (of which "datum" is the singular equivalent) - meaning that I will (e.g.) write "the data indicate that...." rather than "the data indicates that....". I get a tiny amount of perverse delight on hearing/reading people "correcting" me on this issue

It should be treated like the word staff.

The staff is eating dinner
The staff are eating dinner

If the reference is to discrete units, it is plural. If aggregate, then singular. Therefore in the first example they are eating together while in the second they are each eating on their own but at the same time. So data are rounded to two decimals before the data is processed.

Oh, and Mach - still haven not seen anything compelling from you. Sorry.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm one of the few people who insists on treating the word "data" as a plural noun (of which "datum" is the singular equivalent) - meaning that I will (e.g.) write "the data indicate that...." rather than "the data indicates that....". I get a tiny amount of perverse delight on hearing/reading people "correcting" me on this issue

Not that few....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's either a 530.1 or a misquote. But was he referring to all the charges or just a particular one? I could see a 530.2 acquittal for the actual murder charges but a 530.1 acquittal for the "simulated burglary".

No, can't be. He specifically said "because they didn't commit the crime" as applying to counts A, B, C and D. That has to cover all of them, no splitting. And then he said "because the crime didn't happen" as applying to count E.

Obviously, the murder happened. He couldn't acquit on that one on the grounds that it didn't. But it's all quite clearly a 530.1 acquittal. The other stuff Mach is referring to is just standard lawyer Pontius Pilate stuff. It doesn't mean diddly-squat.

Rolfe.

 

[Machiavelli]

The logic of this has been pointed out to you and you are too intelligent not to see it. Mignini is a lying liar. Full stop and circle back, well done, cooked.

I think not. I find Mignini's two explanations perfectly consistent with each other and appropriate to describing the contexts. I think your assertion that he is a liar is specious and false.

I also note, again, to me Mignini is not required to give, or to know, any specific explanation for the non recording of things on two occasions. I do not expect any clear-cut "reason", all reasons for "why" are retrospective thoughts and interpretations by Mignini himself, not facts.

That there is a use of not recording by the police for budget reasons, is true. That there were many other things Mignini was dealing with at 4 am, in the moment when Amanda told him she wanted to release a statement, this is also true.
There is no evidence of Mignini's lying on any fact nor a remote clue of this.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I think not. I find Mignini's two explanations perfectly consistent with each other and appropriate to describing the contexts. I think your assertion that he is a liar is specious and false.

I also note, again, to me Mignini is not required to give, or to know, any specific explanation for the non recording of things on two occasions. I do not expect any clear-cut "reason", all reasons for "why" are retrospective thoughts and interpretations by Mignini himself, not facts.

That there is a use of not recording by the police for budget reasons, is true. That there were many other things Mignini was dealing with at 4 am, in the moment when Amanda told him she wanted to release a statement, this is also true.
There is no evidence of Mignini's lying on any fact nor a remote clue of this.

If you have a good smart phone you can record an interrogation for free.

Over.

 

[Machiavelli]

Incidentally - how many of Mach's predictions have proven right so far?

Why do you speak about predictions? I do not deliver predictions.

However, I guessed some things, such as the 25 years conviction in first degree (I assessed as more likely a figure like 25, Amanda got 26).

In fact everything was as I expected, except the appointing of new experts by the Appeal court. That I consider it unexpected, and a major procedural flaw, unjustified. I also did not expect the appointing of Vecchiotti, who is a close friend of Tagliabracci and Pascali and the "enemy" of Stefanoni.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you have a good smart phone you can record an interrogation for free.

Over.

Over what? The budget is for having the interrogation verbatim transcripted, as the parties would require.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Over what? The budget is for having the interrogation verbatim transcripted, as the parties would require.

Well first, Mignini said nothing about transcription charges from what I recall. Second, how much is a transcription job? You really think they said to themselves "Well, we could record this, but then we might have to pay for a transcription job!". "Gosh golly you're right. I know this case has already received international press and no one has been arrested, but 500 euro is 500 euro! Our budget just isn't cut out for that kind of thing".

What a joke!

Quick math question for Padron and Machiavelli. What is It's + over?

 

[Rolfe]

It's not over till we see the motivation of the calunnia charge....

Rolfe.

 

[Machiavelli]

Seriously, it's over. You're wrong. These are 530.1 acquittals. Definitely. No datum point in the world will change that truth. But why does it matter to you so much?

It does not matter to me so much what the verdicts are like.
But I don't know what the verdict would be.

What matters to me here is how you assert that you know.
It is your claimed knowledge.

How do you know?
What is the ground for your statement? Is it just that line from Hellmann interview alone? Or is it other information?
I am making a simple question and you are not answering.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well first, Mignini said nothing about transcription charges from what I recall. Second, how much is a transcription job? You really think they said to themselves "Well, we could record this, but then we might have to pay for a transcription job!". "Gosh golly you're right. I know this case has already received international press and no one has been arrested, but 500 euro is 500 euro! Our budget just isn't cut out for that kind of thing".

What a joke!

Quick math question for Padron and Machiavelli. What is It's + over?

I wonder what the cost was of having officers listen to literally tens of thousands of tapped telephone calls associated with this case, and of transcribing all those calls "of interest"? As an erstwhile member of this parish might have said: "I call shenanigans".

Mignini is a lying liar. And he'll likely soon have his conviction confirmed for abuse of office (which Machiavelli would still laughably and embarrassingly claim is of very minor seriousness, despite the fact that it's a felony-level conviction, has been accorded a custodial sentence of 16 months in the first trial, and will result in his sacking and prohibition from ever holding public office again if upheld). I suggest that there might also be potential charges arising from his handling of the Knox/Sollecito case.

 

[Rolfe]

Someone over at IIP recently remarked that if Mignini loses his appeal and with it the powers of his office, he'll have no way of preventing any of his colleagues from blaming him for everything and anything back to the fall of Rome itself.

That's an intriguing prospect....

Rolfe.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well first, Mignini said nothing about transcription charges from what I recall. Second, how much is a transcription job? You really think they said to themselves "Well, we could record this, but then we might have to pay for a transcription job!". "Gosh golly you're right. I know this case has already received international press and no one has been arrested, but 500 euro is 500 euro! Our budget just isn't cut out for that kind of thing".

What a joke!

Quick math question for Padron and Machiavelli. What is It's + over?

"Mignini said nothing". If all you know about the context is what Mignini says... you will always have this problem.

Everybody knows if there is a recording it means there is an officer employed for the recording, and there is a policy by the Questura, which is a political power (often an idiotic political power) and makes a point in cutting budgets on everything including possible transcripts.

Moreover, everybody in Italy understands that the police (the Questura) could even decide to take any illicit or turbid behaviour, but this has nothing to do with decisions of Mignini. And in Perugia, for example, everybody knows Mignini is a man "of the Carabinieri", that he trusts the Carabinieri and not the Questura.

 

[LondonJohn]

It does not matter to me so much what the verdicts are like.
But I don't know what the verdict would be.

What matters to me here is how you assert that you know.
It is your claimed knowledge.

How do you know?
What is the ground for your statement? Is it just that line from Hellmann interview alone? Or is it other information?
I am making a simple question and you are not answering.

No, it's a whole variety of things. I've answered you already. Go back and look. I can't be bothered to help you understand any longer. You will never realise that your argument is wrong - even, I suspect, when the Hellmann motivations report makes it crystal clear that the acquittals were all on a 530.1 basis. I'm done with this subject: you feel free to carry on spouting nonsense about it if makes you feel better, but I'm not prepared to play this game any longer. I'm right. You'll soon see. Move on.

Perhaps you should consider devoting your energies to something that actually has some ongoing relevance, such as Italy's precarious economic and political position, its potential to become a laughing stock for its financial mismanagement and tragically poor government, and its likely pivotal role in breaking up the Euro. Have a crack at that topic: who knows, you might even be shown to be correct on it!

 

[LondonJohn]

"Mignini said nothing". If all you know about the context is what Mignini says... you will always have this problem.

Everybody knows if there is a recording it means there is an officer employed for the recording, and there is a policy by the Questura, which is a political power (often an idiotic political power) and makes a point in cutting budgets on everything including possible transcripts.

Moreover, everybody in Italy understands that the police (the Questura) could even decide to take any illicit or turbid behaviour, but this has nothing to do with decisions of Mignini. And in Perugia, for example, everybody knows Mignini is a man "of the Carabinieri", that he trusts the Carabinieri and not the Questura.

Yeah, I'd actually agree with you on one thing: the Perugia state police (specifically the ludicrously misnamed "flying squad" and the leaders) have shown themselves to be the most egregious liars, dissemblers, obfuscators, incompetents, and participants in malpractice in this case. They are a disgrace.

 

[LondonJohn]

Someone over at IIP recently remarked that if Mignini loses his appeal and with it the powers of his office, he'll have no way of preventing any of his colleagues from blaming him for everything and anything back to the fall of Rome itself.

That's an intriguing prospect....

Rolfe.

I think that the main factor mitigating against such a development would be that Mignini knows where many (metaphorical) bodies are buried. I suspect that he has "the goods" on most of the main characters in the Perugia law enforcement and judiciary circles, and that's why I suspect that most people would hesitate to prod a wounded tiger. It would, however, be fun if it did happen, and to watch Mignini unleash a torrent of counter-accusations in his defence. I'd definitely travel to Perugia to watch that happen hehe

 

[smkovalinksy]

It's not over till we see the motivation of the calunnia charge....

Rolfe.

What will that need to be , to make it truly over? Why would that circumvent the supreme court appeal? Not being snarky, really wanting to get it straight.

 

[Machiavelli]

I wonder what the cost was of having officers listen to literally tens of thousands of tapped telephone calls associated with this case, and of transcribing all those calls "of interest"? As an erstwhile member of this parish might have said: "I call shenanigans".

Mignini is a lying liar. And he'll likely soon have his conviction confirmed for abuse of office (which Machiavelli would still laughably and embarrassingly claim is of very minor seriousness, despite the fact that it's a felony-level conviction, has been accorded a custodial sentence of 16 months in the first trial, and will result in his sacking and prohibition from ever holding public office again if upheld). I suggest that there might also be potential charges arising from his handling of the Knox/Sollecito case.

Please avoid misquoting. It's not that I wrote something like is "of very minor seriousness".

But it is a fact in the criminal code that:

1) abuse of office has a minumum formal penalty of 6 months, and a maximum of three years (the minimum can be lowered by mitigation though). By comparison calunnia has a formal minimum of two years and a maximum that on some conditions can be up to twenty (the minimum can be lowered here too).
2) abuse of office is a charge implying that the officer did not state anything false, meaning he did not produce any act containing anything false. There is in fact a different, much more serious charge if there is an allegation that the officer produced false acts, such as fabricated evidence, or acted on knowingly false information, accusations etc.
Thus, a person guilty of abuse of office cannot be called a liar.
Technically a person guilty of abuse of office is a public officer who employs power "beyond the limit, or without proper authorisation, or with illegitimate means, or for illegitimate purposes". But is not a person who produces false acts.

 

[Ammonitida]

Why do you speak about predictions? I do not deliver predictions.
I also did not expect the appointing of Vecchiotti, who is a close friend of Tagliabracci and Pascali and the "enemy" of Stefanoni.

Are you suggesting another conspiracy here?

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it's a whole variety of things. I've answered you already. Go back and look. I can't be bothered to help you understand any longer. You will never realise that your argument is wrong - even, I suspect, when the Hellmann motivations report makes it crystal clear that the acquittals were all on a 530.1 basis. I'm done with this subject: you feel free to carry on spouting nonsense about it if makes you feel better, but I'm not prepared to play this game any longer. I'm right. You'll soon see. Move on.

...

Ok, you don't know.