You should calm down a little.
First off, even Barbie Nadeau concedes that Mignini theorized a connection between this horrible event and Hallowe'en. Call it a "Satanic ritual" or that it was a "ritualistic killing associated with the dawn of the dead," or anything else. It is simply a matter of record that Mignini theorized this way. Then he changed it.
It's false.
A "connection between this murder and Halloween" does not mean nor imply any "ritualistic killing".
Mignini simply did
not theorize a ritual murder.
(in fact he even
explicitly pointed out that the murder had no relation with a cult).
Mignini only and always pictured a scenario of sexual game, where the murder was only an unpredicted side effect.
Whether the details of the sexual game could have been in some way triggered taking some inspiration from the Halloween atmosphere, and from some of the peculiar violent manga and porn movies collected by Sollecito, he mentioned this possibility and called it "not unrealistic".
(Such possible "inspiration" is only referred to the possible style of the "festino sessuale" (a sexual game, or sexual prank) that they might have in mind. Not to the murder. The murder is only the consequence of violence arising in a context where some sexual approach was refused or anyway the "party" went wrong).
Whoever calls this "theorizing a Satanic ritual" or calls this a "ritual murder theory" is obviously purposedly twisting, and building a malicious lie.
The interrogation was inadmissible at trial. That's what the ISC ruled. If that doesn't make it "illegal" what does?
The 01:45 interrogation was inadmissible (actually: "not-usable") because all interrogations are inadmissible as evidence against the person who released them, in the case for which they were helping the investigation. The 05:45 statement was not-usable *
as evidence in a murder trial* because the suspect was not yet assisted by a lawyer. But the statement was collected legally! It was not usable in a trial (by that status - but it could have
become usable if she confirmed), but anyway it was usable in an investigation. The non-usability bears absolutely NO implication that the document is illegal. This is an absolute invention. And I not that you still refuse to acept such an obvious legal point.
Andrea Vogt made a mistake. I am clear that I did not and have never accused her of lying. She simply parroted the prosecution line, that eventually was not used as a basis of conviction.
Your legitimate opinion. But your pointing at Vogt's "mistakes" on your part is grotesque, like cleaning your rearview mirror while you are sitting in a car sinking in a river.
Repeat: if it had been an admission by Knox that she'd been at the cottage, Judge Massei would have used that as a reason to convict. He did not.
This argument is wrong. Your deduction is unfounded, the reasoning is flawed. Absence is not evidence. It is a general rule. I mean the reasoning which is wrong, it's always wrong - not talking specificaly about this particular element.
Ms. Vogt reported on a reason to heavily suspect Amanda Knox was guilty... and this turned out not to be true. Has she ever corrected the record?
The actual dishonesty is that you pick up
this and not the rest that you have around your. You look at the droplets on your rearmirror and not at the marshy river. There is no reason why you should start from asking yourself why Vogt shold "correct" herself right on that particular (irrelevant) piece of information.
A "criminally libellous campaign"? Is not this accusation itself the definition of "calunnia"?
No, calunnia is giving false evidence to the police.
Are you not accusing someone of committing a crime when you know full well they are doing no such thing?
I know very wel that you (plural) and many media are doing exactly that.
Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that Judge Hellmann was bought off by a Masonic conspiracy?
Ask her.
Anyway, I think Hellmann was bought off, but the Masons only found the contact and channels, they are not the ones who paid nor those who masterminded.
Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that Amanda Knox is immune from sleep deprivation?
You are again (implicitly) attempting to offer a false picture my opinions. My stance about Knoxs' (let's say alleged?) sleep deprivation-related theories, is not about "immunity" from sleep deprivation; it is instead about irrelevance and lack of any factual element of it.
Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that guilt or innocence is NOT derived from a comprehensive narrative of the crime?
Again you ask her. I may suggest you don't forget that Vogt is a reporter, not a law philosophy scholar, and she may well have no stance about this.
