Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Dan O.]

IIRC Frank wrote that the interviews were recorded and that the recordings still exist. That recordings were made seems quite likely, but I would be surprised if they still exist.

That depends. There are two people who would have been in a position to have made the recording and would have been able to insure that a copy of the recording would still exist even if the rest of the department were intent on the recording not existing. Either of these people may have confided in Frank that the recording is safe.

The recording only hurts the officers that were in the interrogation and those that testifies that there was no recording (ie: Mignini). For anyone else, if they haven't been directly asked about the recording, it is neutral for them. There are foreseeable conditions in the future where discovery of the tape may be an asset. But the future value can only be held if there is no proof that the tape exists. And nobody that this tape can hurt can afford to force the issue which might cause the release of the tape. However, a strong rumor of the tapes existence will have the effect of tempering the actions of those that can be hurt by the tape without exposing the holder. I had already thought and posted about this long before Frank brought it up. Frank only confirmed what I already knew to be the truth.

Think about this: Frank is saying that he knows who has the tape. Why hasn't Frank been brought before a Judge to reveal this information?

 

[Grinder]

That depends. There are two people who would have been in a position to have made the recording and would have been able to insure that a copy of the recording would still exist even if the rest of the department were intent on the recording not existing. Either of these people may have confided in Frank that the recording is safe.

There were twelve people or more involved in the interrogations that night. I don't know what evidence there is that only two that would have been in the position to make the recording. Here we do have specialists that set up video recording of police traffic sting operations, but in the Perugian situation I find hard to believe that most if not all of the detectives would have been capable of pushing the start button.

I see absolutely no reason why any of them would share this info with Frank. I believe that it is much more likely that this would have sold to a tab by now than someone telling Frank.

The recording only hurts the officers that were in the interrogation and those that testifies that there was no recording (ie: Mignini). For anyone else, if they haven't been directly asked about the recording, it is neutral for them. There are foreseeable conditions in the future where discovery of the tape may be an asset. But the future value can only be held if there is no proof that the tape exists. And nobody that this tape can hurt can afford to force the issue which might cause the release of the tape. However, a strong rumor of the tapes existence will have the effect of tempering the actions of those that can be hurt by the tape without exposing the holder. I had already thought and posted about this long before Frank brought it up. Frank only confirmed what I already knew to be the truth.

Who do you think you are the chief of police?

Quite frankly I don't understand the bulk of the paragraph. The tape could hurt Patrick and his law suit. It could help or hurt Amanda depending on what's on it. If there is evidence that she was abused (not tortured ), and that led into the Patrick accusation, game over for the ILE.

Why would somebody that the tape would hurt press the issue? Why would the rumor temper anything? If the recording exists, it very hard to believe that no one has cashed in yet. A video recording could be worth millions if it showed Amanda's recounting to be true. The TV rights and then the law suit proceeds. Obviously, if the recording substantiated the PLE version it would be out there.

Think about this: Frank is saying that he knows who has the tape. Why hasn't Frank been brought before a Judge to reveal this information?

Because they think he is a nutter.

 

[Dan O.]

There were twelve people or more involved in the interrogations that night. I don't know what evidence there is that only two that would have been in the position to make the recording. Here we do have specialists that set up video recording of police traffic sting operations, but in the Perugian situation I find hard to believe that most if not all of the detectives would have been capable of pushing the start button.

You're not getting the big picture. If there is a recorder in the interrogation room, it is a prop. None of the officers in the room have control of the recording.

Where did I say only two? I mention two, one as a role which i discussed previously and which you bring up and the other whom we all know. It is entirely possible that the two could be the same person. It's just a little more risky for that prison if there is not a possibility of a backup so I will help out by calling it two unless there is proof otherwise.

There could be more than two involved. But it becomes increasing difficult to keep a secret at that point. Someone will choose to cash out by taking the tape to the press. The best time for that will be durring the callunia herrings. There will be renued intrest so the price will be up. And after all of the officers involved have been forced to testify, the purgury created against them then will neutralize their threat.

I see absolutely no reason why any of them would share this info with Frank. I believe that it is much more likely that this would have sold to a tab by now than someone telling Frank.

It's difficult to know exactly what Frank's roll is. He could be the backup to safeguard against "accidents". He could be a feeler to find the highest bidder without revealing the actual existence of the tapes. Or perhaps he is just an excellent investigative journalist and he figured it out on his own.

Quite frankly I don't understand the bulk of the paragraph. The tape could hurt Patrick and his law suit. It could help or hurt Amanda depending on what's on it. If there is evidence that she was abused (not tortured ), and that led into the Patrick accusation, game over for the ILE.

Neither Patrick nor any outsider can force the appearance of the tapes. I laid out a path that could have been taken earlier if necessary but it's probably too late for that kind of techniclal search. Any attempt to force disclosure of the tapes existence before the time is right could result in the tapes destruction.

Why would somebody that the tape would hurt press the issue?

They wouldn't. That's why they haven't.

Why would the rumor temper anything?

That's like asking why blackmail victims don't just go to the police.

If the recording exists, it very hard to believe that no one has cashed in yet. A video recording could be worth millions if it showed Amanda's recounting to be true. The TV rights and then the law suit proceeds. Obviously, if the recording substantiated the PLE version it would be out there.

Right now, how many of those officers in the interrogation rooms would be taken down by the release of the tape. They are all sticking together telling the same story but very few have actually testified and risk purgory, collusion, conspiracy to subvert justice. The ones that remain on the force would be able to exact revenge for breaking the conspiracy. They need to all go down together. In the mean time, the tape is only a rumor. The smart ones, if they can see what's comming, will be looking to establish new allegiances.

It may also be that the tape is percieved as more valuable if kept simply as an insurance policy. Nobody gets rich but nobody gets hurt either. Frank may have just found a way to get under this umbrella.

The tape would be quite valuable to Amanda. But Amanda does not have access. I can't think of any way to change that.

 

[Grinder]

Dan - Could you start over and explain your position on the recording again? I really can't follow what you are saying. I can't figure out who the two are. I don't understand why the recorder would be a prop.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hey! Let's all discuss Galati!

I was looking in the partial translation of Galati for something else and found myself absorbed in his critique of Hellman's handling of circumstantial evidence. It's here

http://galatiappeal.wordpress.com/contents/preface/

and I am interested in 'violation of principles of law which govern a circumstantial case'. Perhaps someone with a gift for these things, Grinder maybe, could sum it up in a few sentences. As I read it, very slowly, I imagined a judge in a UK or US case giving a jury direction in these terms. Of course, they would have no chance understanding it and yet - in our system it is the jury's task to weigh and assess the evidence and come to a verdict. So, to me, coming from our side, this all looks like pretentiously intellectual nonsense but I suspect to an Italian, or anyone who has tried to systematise the principles it must seem equally daft that we entrust what is essentially rocket science to the unwashed masses.

If I gather it correctly, though, what Galati is saying is that Hellman, contrary to law, looked at items of circumstantial evidence in isolation from other items and that this is the wrong approach. You must look at all the evidence as a whole. That may be an over-simplification (Grinder?) but it is correct in my opinion.

More shortly.

 

[anglolawyer]

More Galati

We all know this bit

“The existence of a fact cannot be inferred [desunta] from circumstantial evidence unless the latter is serious, precise, and consistent [gravi, precisi, e concordanti].”

but I think this is not important as it's just a threshold test for circumstantial evidence and I am not sure Galati accuses Hellman of drawing inferences from jocular, vague or incoherent evidence. Or maybe it is important, I don't know. After dwelling on it for a bit we get a 'but' (I have chopped out the footnote references and translator's remarks):

But in addition to these learned definitions of the method of assessing circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court has also suggested to the merit judge how to conduct the evaluation of multiple pieces of evidence of a circumstantial character. The Court has established that “the rule articulated in the initial statement of C.P.P. Article 192, according to which ‘the existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstances’ — based, in rational terms, on the inherent ambiguity of circumstances themselves, which enables them to be placed in (direct or inverse) causal relationships, with a multiplicity of causes or effects — serves to signify that [a single] circumstance is considered inadequate on its own to establish the facts.

[Such a circumstance] acquires probative value only when multiple pieces of evidence can all be traced to a single cause or a single effect. In applying this, therefore, the judge must first examine each item of evidence, identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections, as well as the precision, which is correlated to the sharpness of [the item's] contours, the clarity of its representation, to the direct or indirect source of knowledge from which it derives, [and thus] to its reliability. [The judge] must, finally, proceed to the final synthesis, ascertaining whether the items under examination are consistent, i.e. whether they can be linked to a single cause or a single effect, so that the existence or nonexistence of the fact to be proved can be inferred.

I only highlighted that bit because it sounds great, like physics or something: 'inversely proporional'. Cool. But I guess it means something like the knife DNA is grave because it does not have many logical (causal?) connections while the traces revealed by luminol are not so grave as they have more. Or this or that potential giveaway remark of a suspect has maybe even more. But I am still not sure I understand it because it says 'connections', not causes. How does one identify and then count logical connections in order to assess their gravity? Is this how our minds work, or should work? Is it really just a question of counting? If there are only three logical connections is something always more grave than when there are four?

Whatever, all this seems to be saying is that the decision must be based on the whole of the evidence. Fine. And one piece of circumstantial evidence, viewed on its own, might prove nothing but it may acquire great significance in combination with one or more other pieces of evidence. That's fine too.

More anon.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

IIRC Frank wrote that the interviews were recorded and that the recordings still exist. That recordings were made seems quite likely, but I would be surprised if they still exist.

5 years down the road and folks still think these tapes exist, must be one of the world’s best kept secrets. Having read elsewhere I can understand why Frank’s credibility is in question, I wonder whether he is a ticking bomb.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

just wondering

Having read elsewhere I can understand why Frank’s credibility is in question, I wonder whether he is a ticking bomb.

Have you ever had the same thought about PM Mignini?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Have you ever had the same thought about PM Mignini?

Mignini appears to be thought of quite highly in Perugia and also I have never read either of the defence team joining in with public vilification of him, so no. But it is interesting just how silent Frank’s supporters are right now, like I said he is a ticking bomb likely to cash in his storey to the highest bidder. Anyway Frank is persona non grata as far as Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters are concerned.

 

[anglolawyer]

Mignini appears to be thought of quite highly in Perugia and also I have never read either of the defence team joining in with public vilification of him, so no. But it is interesting just how silent Frank’s supporters are right now, like I said he is a ticking bomb likely to cash in his storey to the highest bidder. Anyway Frank is persona non grata as far as Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters are concerned.

I am wondering whether you have counted up all the logical connections to make the right assessment of the gravity of Mignini's conduct. You do realise these are inversely proportionate, don't you?

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini appears to be thought of quite highly in Perugia and also I have never read either of the defence team joining in with public vilification of him, so no. But it is interesting just how silent Frank’s supporters are right now, like I said he is a ticking bomb likely to cash in his storey to the highest bidder. Anyway Frank is persona non grata as far as Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters are concerned.

Do you really believe that last statement?

Also, given all the predatory prosecutions which have emanated from this botched murder investigation/prosecution do you think ANYONE is going to risk challenging Mignini when he can have you put in jail for up to a year merely as a "precaution"?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am wondering whether you have counted up all the logical connections to make the right assessment of the gravity of Mignini's conduct. You do realise these are inversely proportionate, don't you?

Let’s wait and see whether any of the people you and others believe are guilty of wrong doing are ever sent to trial or are professionally censured. Are you aware of either defence team lawyers making any public allegations of Mignini’s conduct as being unlawful?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

surprised is not the half of it

Let’s wait and see whether any of the people you and others believe are guilty of wrong doing are ever sent to trial or are professionally censured. Are you aware of either defence team lawyers making any public allegations of Mignini’s conduct as being unlawful?

I am well beyond surprised that one would ever propose such a criterion. Considering just one example, namely how one of Raffaele's lawyers tiptoed around the issue of who lost the metadata pertaining to the access of the Stardust file (which I have previously discussed and cited), I would be astounded that any lawyer in Perugia would say anything bad about the authorities, except in the most extreme of circumstances. Perhaps one should consder the number and the substance of legal actions that PM Mignini has taken against reporters or people on the periphery of a crime. Do you think that the action taken against Frank's original blog was justified?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am well beyond surprised that one would ever propose such a criterion. Considering just one example, namely how one of Raffaele's lawyers tiptoed around the issue of who lost the metadata pertaining to the access of the Stardust file (which I have previously discussed and cited), I would be astounded that any lawyer in Perugia would say anything bad about the authorities, except in the most extreme of circumstances. Perhaps one should consder the number and the substance of legal actions that PM Mignini has taken against reporters or people on the periphery of a crime. Do you think that the action taken against Frank's original blog was justified?

Has Mignini actually been charged within anything related to the Meredith Kercher case?


Does Frank have any outstanding arrest warrants in the US?

Has Mignini been arrested for of the accusations against him?

Does Frank have any outstanding legal issues in Perugia?

Simple yes or no would suffice for the above, thanks.

 

[anglolawyer]

More Galati with that?

This is the key bit of the discussion of the approach to circumstantial evidence, I think:

This review of the Cassazione‘s jurisprudence on circumstantial cases grows out of the fact that the Corte di Assise di Appello has not conducted a unified evaluation of the evidence and has not examined the various items of evidence in a unified and global manner. In the ruling under appeal, it has, on the contrary, made a hash out of the evidence; it has assessed each piece of evidence in an isolated way according to an erroneous logical procedure, with the aim of critiquing its individual qualitative value; without noticing that, if it had followed the evaluative procedure dictated by the Cassazione, each item would have been integrated with the others, leading to an unambiguous clarification of what had been introduced [into evidence], so as to arrive at the logical proof of the fact: that is, the responsibility of the defendants for the murder.

So, taking Curatolo, say: the facts that he was a heroine addict, professional witness, did not come forward for months, forgot which night he was describing, furnished them with an alibi and created as many problems as he solved (if any) by planting them in the square for hours is not enough since (say) Amanda's bloody footprints in the apartment and the bra clasp prove they were there.

Anyhow, looking at Galati, something like this does indeed turn out to be the problem:

In the section relating to the witness Curatolo, the judgment continues in its methodological line highlighted in point n ̊ 2 of the premise of the current appeal; individually examining the considered items of circumstantial evidence instead of in their totality and their drawing together in the judgment of the Court of Assizes of Perugia.

So, how does Galati put Curatolo back on his feet? Not by reference to a whole bunch of other circumstances it seems. He says heroine is not a hallucinogen and Curatolo cannot have mixed up 31 Oct and 01 Nov because we know A & R were not in the square on 31 Oct and as Curatolo saw them he must have seen them on 01 Nov.

Not only is this a breach of the petitio principii, since the conclusion (Curatolo saw them in the square) is also one of the premises, but Galati does not set out any of the logical connections, nor count them nor enumerate other circumstantial evidence which might buttress Curatolo's evidence. He does claim, though, speak of the 'extraordinary accuracy' of the witness with reference to seeing the forensic guys the next day.

Maybe I will do better with Quintavalle in finding a piece of evidence, itself of doubtful value, which stacks up when placed alongside a bunch of other evidence. More soon

 

[Chris_Halkides]

salt needed

Has Mignini actually been charged within anything related to the Meredith Kercher case?


Does Frank have any outstanding arrest warrants in the US?

Has Mignini been arrested for of the accusations against him?

Does Frank have any outstanding legal issues in Perugia?

Simple yes or no would suffice for the above, thanks.

Your answer above is a deflection of the issue I raised. Please address this first. Also, I would advise taking any information found at dot org or dot net with generous grains of salt.

 

[anglolawyer]

Let’s wait and see whether any of the people you and others believe are guilty of wrong doing are ever sent to trial or are professionally censured. Are you aware of either defence team lawyers making any public allegations of Mignini’s conduct as being unlawful?

No.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Your answer above is a deflection of the issue I raised. Please address this first. Also, I would advise taking any information found at dot org or dot net with generous grains of salt.

It is not a deflection at all. The simple truth is neither defence teams have publicly accused Mignini.

I do understand your difficulty in responding to simple questions, as ever I am happy for anyone to draw their own conclusions.

As you know Frank Sfarzo (Sforza) does have outstanding arrest warrants in the US and legal issues in Italy, if he ever returned to the US he would be arrested where as Mignini if he wished could travel to the US without fear of arrest.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Perugia versus Rome and Florence

It is not a deflection at all. The simple truth is neither defence teams have publicly accused Mignini.

I do understand your difficulty in responding to simple questions, as ever I am happy for anyone to draw their own conclusions.

(highlighting mine)
What you wrote was a deflection because it avoided answering my point, which is that the lack of public criticism of PM Mignini is at least as plausibly explained by their fear of legal action as PM Mignini's rectitude. Coming from you, the highlighted section is risible. You have declined to answer many simple questions (claiming lack of time) here and on the other thread. I'll give you a lesson in how it is done: "I do not know X 4."

Did you read the links that I provided? If so, what is your explanation for why Mr. Maori skirted around saying the obvious, that the police were responsible for the loss of the access time? What is your evaluation of the charges that PM Mignini brought against Joe Cottonwood? What is your evaluation of the charges brought agains the West Seattle Herald? If it were your intent to evaluate PM Mignini honestly and objectively, why confine yourself to Perugia but instead consider his convictions involving officials in Rome and Florence?

"What were the charges Giuliano Mignini was convicted for?....
2.) Ordering an illegal investigation of the Florentine ex police chief Giuseppe De Donno.

3.) Ordering illegal investigations of two officials of the Viminale, the Ministry of the Interior in Rome, including an illegal investigation of the Roberto Sgalla, ex-director of the office of external affairs."

 

[CoulsdonUK]

(highlighting mine)
What you wrote was a deflection because it avoided answering my point, which is that the lack of public criticism of PM Mignini is at least as plausibly explained by their fear of legal action as PM Mignini's rectitude. Coming from you, the highlighted section is risible. You have declined to answer many simple questions (claiming lack of time) here and on the other thread. I'll give you a lesson in how it is done: "I do not know X 4."

Did you read the links that I provided? If so, what is your explanation for why Mr. Maori skirted around saying the obvious, that the police were responsible for the loss of the access time? What is your evaluation of the charges that PM Mignini brought against Joe Cottonwood? What is your evaluation of the charges brought agains the West Seattle Herald? If it were your intent to evaluate PM Mignini honestly and objectively, why confine yourself to Perugia but instead consider his convictions involving officials in Rome and Florence?

"What were the charges Giuliano Mignini was convicted for?....
2.) Ordering an illegal investigation of the Florentine ex police chief Giuseppe De Donno.

3.) Ordering illegal investigations of two officials of the Viminale, the Ministry of the Interior in Rome, including an illegal investigation of the Roberto Sgalla, ex-director of the office of external affairs."

You’re going to give me a lesson, oh please! Sorry, I will get back to you as soon as I can stop laughing!