• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
I posted the link upthread to John Follain's Sunday Times piece where Follain reports on this. If you do not know who John Follain is, he wrote the "guilter" book on this case, "A Death in Italy", and had unique access to Giuliano Mignini right up until the appeal's verdict.

Follain, John (19 October 2008). "Amanda Knox ‘stabbed Meredith Kercher to death in satanic ritual’". Sunday Times (London).

Look it up. To use your logic, why should we believe anything Follain says? Hey.... that's not a bad idea!!!
Click to expand...

I think you guys have said over and over Barbie nadue and Vogt have missreported things over and over.

yet this follian guy has not? If this is true you would have more than follian saying it but one suspects immediately that you cannot quote multiple sources.

the police investigators did think there could be a link to Halloween given it happened the night after which I don't think is some kind of crazy conspiracy theory but Mignini never said anything about satanic rites. you are just making this up to buttress your absurd claim he's some kind of foaming at the mouth madman.
 
Last edited:
DrTesla said:
I think you guys have said over and over Barbie nadue and Vogt have missreported things over and over.

yet this follian guy has not? If this is true you would have more than follian saying it but one suspects immediately that you cannot quote multiple sources.

the police investigators did think there could be a link to Halloween given it happened the night after which I don't think is some kind of crazy conspiracy theory but Mignini never said anything about satanic rites. you are just making this up to buttress your absurd claim he's some kind of foaming at the mouth madman.
Click to expand...

"You guys"? This note is not for Dr. Tesla, it is for the lurkers here. Judge for yourself. I get called a liar for saying that Mignini had as one of his ever changing motives that Knox was engaged in a "satanic ritual", I show where he did, and then the source I use is challenged - a source, if you know John Follain - who had unique access to Mignini and the police in writing his book, "A death in Italy."

So, lurkers, do not believe me. Make up your own mind. And assess the argumentative styles of those who demand proof, and then don't accept it when it is given.
 
Bill Williams said:
Prosecutors accuse Knox of engaging in a Satanic ritual:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article242579.ece

Mignini's favourite characterization of Knox was as a "she-devil" He meant it literally.
Click to expand...

that is another lie. It was Patrick's lawyer, Patrick being the black man falsely accused by Knox and she even referred to him as the African boy who works at the pub, who reffered to Knox as a she-devil in court, not Mignini. this is something everybody understands if they read the trial transcript. I may post it later if I ffeel like embarrassing your futhur although one senses you don't really care much about being exposed as a liar or wildly misinformed. you essentially want to cut and paste doug preston on here as source authority on this case even though he has a personal beef with mignini from the MOF case that clouds his judgement, and he knows nothing about the Knox case.

Patrick's lawyer also didnt' say "Knox is a she-devil" he asked a question, "is she this innocent angel faced woman we see in court or is she the luciferous she-devil who butchered her roommate" it was some dramatic melodrama in the courtroom but he posed it as a question for which the answer was still t be determined by the trial.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
"You guys"? This note is not for Dr. Tesla, it is for the lurkers here. Judge for yourself. I get called a liar for saying that Mignini had as one of his ever changing motives that Knox was engaged in a "satanic ritual", I show where he did, and then the source I use is challenged - a source, if you know John Follain - who had unique access to Mignini and the police in writing his book, "A death in Italy."

So, lurkers, do not believe me. Make up your own mind. And assess the argumentative styles of those who demand proof, and then don't accept it when it is given.
Click to expand...

if something is a fact it can be corroborated by every single reporter covering the case. his motive theories shouldn't be some secret yet the only reporter you talk about suggesting the satanic rite is this Follian guy.
 
Kaosium said:
Well, true enough, hindsight is 20-20. However the old adage: 'when fighting a rat stay out of the sewer, he knows it better than you' might apply.

OK, I just made that up, (I think) but I suspect they underestimated Mignini there.
Click to expand...

Did Confucius say that? Or Mao? Or maybe Kim Jong Un. But you may be right. Uncorroborated, re-heated jailhouse confidences can never have much weight.
 
Supernaut said:
I wonder what utter nobodies like the Kerchers and Maresca value more; millions of Euros, or knowledge and truth?

Actually, I don't - they've already made it quite clear.
Click to expand...

Supernaut, usually I respect a lot of stuff you post, but this is way beyond the pale. The Kerchers are victims here, more so than AK and RS. They have not only lost their daughter but they have been betrayed and lied to by the very people that they trusted to find the truth. I seriously suggest you retract this statment, if does not become you at all.
 
Bill Williams said:
Prosecutors accuse Knox of engaging in a Satanic ritual:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article242579.ece

Mignini's favourite characterization of Knox was as a "she-devil" He meant it literally.
Click to expand...

Point for Bill Williams! :D

What does Machiavelli have to say about that? I tried to engage him on it to finally get the whole truth of it and he swore up and down and held his breath that Elizabeth Vargas lied about that. Now we have Follain, and there was another report, (was it Nina Burleigh? Maybe even Barbie?) that Mignini tried to re-enter it in the last days of the Massei trial.

Plus we know he definitely went after a 'satanic' cabal in the Monster of Florence case, so why would this be so surprising? I just don't understand!
 
DrTesla said:
that is another lie. It was Patrick's lawyer, Patrick being the black man falsely accused by Knox and she even referred to him as the African boy who works at the pub, who reffered to Knox as a she-devil in court, not Mignini. this is something everybody understands if they read the transcript.

Patrick's lawyer also didnt' say "Knox is a she-devil" he asked a question, "is she this innocent angel faced woman we see in court or is she the luciferous she-devil who butchered her roommate" it was some dramatic melodrama in the courtroom but he posed it as a question for which the answer was still t be determined by the trial.
Click to expand...

Once again, lurkers, do your own research. Don't believe either of us. In fat it is true that this is the way that Patrick's lawyer characterized Knox.

But don't believe either of us. (I also like the way he said, "That's another lie" when I've just proven it true!)
 
Grinder said:
Are we talking Gilligan's Island?
Click to expand...
I had to google that and still don't get it :confused:

Taking Bill's cue, I propose that all posts hereafter be addressed to the lurkers, like declamations in the Forum. Friends, Lurkers, Countrymen, I come to bury Grinder, not to praise him etc.

How many lurkers are there? Two? Two hundred? Two million? :boxedin:
 
Kaosium said:
Point for Bill Williams! :D

What does Machiavelli have to say about that? I tried to engage him on it to finally get the whole truth of it and he swore up and down and held his breath that Elizabeth Vargas lied about that. Now we have Follain, and there was another report, (was it Nina Burleigh? Maybe even Barbie?) that Mignini tried to re-enter it in the last days of the Massei trial.

Plus we know he definitely went after a 'satanic' cabal in the Monster of Florence case, so why would this be so surprising? I just don't understand!
Click to expand...

he never went after a satantic cabal in the MOF case. he really didn't work on the MOF case at all. He investigaged the possible murder of a doctor in Perugia who may or may not have been involved with MOF but he wasn't seeking to establish that, only if he was murdered. there appeared to have been a body swap when the coffin was exhumed and Mignini's charges in the case had to do with people being involved in the body swap and obstruction of justice as I understand. he never talked about Satanic rites in that case b/c the case was about a murder of a doctor and body swaps after the fact.
 
Bill Williams said:
Once again, lurkers, do your own research. Don't believe either of us. In fat it is true that this is the way that Patrick's lawyer characterized Knox.

But don't believe either of us. (I also like the way he said, "That's another lie" when I've just proven it true!)
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you man. you really got some issues. you act like the trial testimony doesn't exist where it clearly is demonstrated Patrick's lawyer, not Mignini, talks about the she devil thing which is posed in more of a question which is little more than is she innocent (an angel as she looks in court) or in reality is she guilt, therefore a devil, that he spiced up with a little dramatic flair.

Barbie Nadaue, who lives in Italy, speaks Italian, and has been to most of the Knox court hearings, has written that Mignini did not ever propose a satantic rite theory. she said that the police investigators did bounce around the idea that it associated with Halloween in some way but that was pre-trial before Mignini's involvement.

again if Mignini said this was his motive we should have several quotes of him talking about it. in reality even if somehow your lies could be made true, all that matters is what motive theory he talks about in his closing statement at the end of the trial, and that was it was about tensions b/t the two girls over Knox's active sexlife and maybe over money
 
Last edited:
Supernaut said:
I wonder what utter nobodies like the Kerchers and Maresca value more; millions of Euros, or knowledge and truth?

Actually, I don't - they've already made it quite clear.
Click to expand...

Briars said:
No one left to step in and object to this bottom of the barrel scum talk. Great company for all of you. The writing on the wall must be causing you to loose all sense of decency. The professor should cringe at the thought of one of his students reading whats posted here against a murdered student's family.
Click to expand...

Spin on it.
 
Briars said:
No one left to step in and object to this bottom of the barrel scum talk. Great company for all of you. The writing on the wall must be causing you to loose all sense of decency. The professor should cringe at the thought of one of his students reading whats posted here against a murdered student's family.
Click to expand...

I hadn't gotten to the post in quest at the time, but yes, I agreee, Supernaut was well and truly out of line in that post, hence my demand for a retraction. Were it against the rules of the booard, I would have lodged a complaint, but experience has shown that moderators here don't care is posters insult people not on the forum and certain posters demand to be allowed to do so.
 
Kaosium said:
I was reading about another case in Italy where it was said the prosecutor had to propose a fast track mitigation and a judge had to approve it. That was for a financial crime or something, do you suppose it works that way with murder too? I'd think at least as many would have to sign off on it for truly dangerous people.
Click to expand...

That was the case before: the prosecutor had to agree to the fast track trial and the judge had to accept the request (438 - 443 C.P.P).

The procedure was modified in 1999 (Legge 16.12.1999 n° 479), now the prosecutor doesn't have a say in it, and the judge is forced to accept the request; basically the defendant can have the fast track trial if so wishes, noone can stop it.
 
What is befuddling to me is why the need to defend Giuliano Mignini? Someone here said that the prosecution is not the people on trial here.... which leads to a quesiton.... why have a trial at all, if all we have to do is take at face value what the prosecution says in any case?

Again, this is for the lurkers. No matter what is said about Giuliano Mignini in the MOF case or in the wrongful prosecution of Sollecito and Knox, there will be people rushing to defend him. First they'll say, "He never said that," then when it's pointed out he did in fact say that, they'll say, "Well that's just one source," then when you provide another source they'll say, "But that was a misinterpretation of what he said." There's always a fall back position to defend the guy.

Why the rush to defend the indefensible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom