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

[christianahannah]

I watched the UK interview with Amanda.

What's striking is that there's still no acknowledgement whatsoever of the actions by Giuliano Mignini and other Italian officials in obtaining the "confession", arrest and ultimately conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

I don't mean very little, but absolutely none, not even implicit.

Questions are still put to Amanda about the "confession" as if it were obtained via entirely legitimate means, as if Amanda is the ONLY one who has any explaining to do.

Which is to say, the Italian authorities are still pussy-footed around.

Christianahannah slyly asked if there is any "documentation" concerning criminality on Mignini's part. There's plenty of it, of course.

But I suspect she was trying to draw people into a discusion about indictments. She needs to be reminded that Mignini already has a conviction for abuse of office, for which he was never acquitted - an appeal court simply annulled it on the basis that the convicting court had "no jurisdiction". The old boy network apprently decided that a "wrist-slap" for him sufficed. Naughty Mignini.

It would seem that there is an implicit understanding amongst MSM reporters and journalists that, failing Italian law-enforcement taking action agaisnt its own, the latter's "authority" is not to be disparaged or undermined in any way.

Which leaves Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito at the mercy of the reprobates and slanderers who can continue their nasty little campaign with the appearance of endorsement by "authority", without which such cowards wouldn't DARE behave as they do.

You are correct I did ask for documentation concerning Mignini breaking the law (but I did not ask it slyly and I asked it as concerning the case against Amanda and Raffaele since that was what Mary's post was referencing). By documentation I meant a specific instance where it was recorded by the judicial system that he broke the law.

I know of investigations against Mignini having referred to them in a post further up the thread.

When I discuss this case (or any subject) I want it to discuss it as factually as possible. Where I am not sure of my knowledge I ask questions. Where I am unsure of what another person has posted I will ask for clarification. And where I have an opinion I will state it. Perhaps that is off putting to many (or all) but it is not meant to be that way.

 

[anglolawyer]

A masonic conspiracy? Hellman was bought off? I thought masons did things because they were masons, not for money. How much was paid Mach? Was it €189,000? Who paid? I mean, whose money was it? The Knoxs' or the Sollecitos' or some faction? And how do you know? Will you be shot if you tell us, in true Italian fashion? Screw that! Will we be shot if you tell us?

You are kidding, right?

 

[Grinder]

The car/tow truck was there from 10:30 to 11:15. You have them running out as the car broke down and then deciding they needed to go back as soon as possible, why? There was no evidence of a clean up.

I think your times are off even 15 minutes is important. The car broke down around 10:30 the tow truck arrived at 11 and departed at 11:13

Briars could you point out where I was off by 15 minutes?

What precise time did the eyewitness claim to see the couple and what precise time did the ear-witness hear the scream?

If 15 minutes is important, the importance works both ways.

Yes you are correct but wrong. In this case the prosecution has moved the TOD at will. As I have been trying to point out, Nara's testimony is worthless in that she had no time, wrong date and couldn't provide any sort of identification.

Whether it is theoretically possible or not is a red herring. If we prove that she and she alone (topography and building situation) could hear a scream from Meredith it doesn't provide useful evidence.

Since all other evidence points to a murder before 10 and departure by 10:30, no later, Nara's, vague at best, story has no weight.

 

[Machiavelli]

A masonic conspiracy? Hellman was bought off? I thought masons did things because they were masons, not for money. How much was paid Mach? Was it €189,000? Who paid? I mean, whose money was it? The Knoxs' or the Sollecitos' or some faction? And how do you know? Will you be shot if you tell us, in true Italian fashion? Screw that! Will we be shot if you tell us?

You are kidding, right?

The figure is approximately 10x higher. The money comes from US sources (namely, I have the names of people in the media buisness). Why should I be kidding? This is not a game.

 

[RoseMontague]

The figure is approximately 10x higher. The money comes from US sources (namely, I have the names of people in the media buisness). Why should I be kidding? This is not a game.

LOL. It's a conspiracy of bribery of Italian judges through Masonic contacts and
very rich people in the media. I have some names as well, Stefanoni is one. Mignini is another.

 

[MDDVS]

The figure is approximately 10x higher. The money comes from US sources (namely, I have the names of people in the media buisness). Why should I be kidding? This is not a game.

I don't believe that conspiracy theory. But if true, it would mean that the situation in Italy is so desperate that you actually have to bribe judges to get justice. That's more typical in thirld world countries.

 

[Diocletus]

The figure is approximately 10x higher. The money comes from US sources (namely, I have the names of people in the media buisness). Why should I be kidding? This is not a game.

Oh good. Since you make the allegations, then you will post the names of these media people who you charge with being involved in the making of corrupt payments. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're just a fraud.

 

[Briars]

The car/tow truck was there from 10:30 to 11:15. You have them running out as the car broke down and then deciding they needed to go back as soon as possible, why? There was no evidence of a clean up.





Briars could you point out where I was off by 15 minutes?



Yes you are correct but wrong. In this case the prosecution has moved the TOD at will. As I have been trying to point out, Nara's testimony is worthless in that she had no time, wrong date and couldn't provide any sort of identification.

Whether it is theoretically possible or not is a red herring. If we prove that she and she alone (topography and building situation) could hear a scream from Meredith it doesn't provide useful evidence.

Since all other evidence points to a murder before 10 and departure by 10:30, no later, Nara's, vague at best, story has no weight.

I've said numerous times I believe the murder happened between 10:15-10:30 before the car /tow truck incident. This fits with Curatolo seeing them later watching the gate, the near collision on the stairs and all three witnesses who heard arguing or screams, You are trying to discount this because Nara didn't check her clock not knowing a crime had been committed? If she were certain it was crime yes, but she even said she thought the terrible scream and the running might have been a joke. Your stubborn thinking that a time check was necessary is just that.

 

[Diocletus]

No US media organization would ever permit such payments. It would be a violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and would subject the payer to very serious criminal charges.

The whole concept is complete nonsense, and you can expect Machiavelli to engage in immediate backpeddling, doubletalk, excuse-making and a sudden disappearing act.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - was Mr. Mignini correct in his interview with CNN's Drew Griffin, or was he correct in what Ms. Vogt quoted about him?

With CNN's Drew Griffin, he said when he arrived to question Knox, he immediately quoted the law to Detective Ficarra about why the interrogation had to end at 1:45 am. Mignini said to everyone in the Questura that Knox was now a suspect. Under Italian law, the very law Mignini quoted to Drew Griffin, that Knox needed a lawyer.

You are making flawed deduction out of your flawed guesses aout the law. Bear in mind that you are referring to no documentation stating the Mignini ever broke the law. Bear this in mind, and I suggest you keep facts (what is actually found) well separate from your flawed guessings about how the law works.

Now. About things you state. One statement is almost correct. She "needed" a lawyer from that moment on.
In fact it is not exactly that moment, because the police cannot decide on the status witness/suspect, they can only suspend, put a question mark, and let a judicial authority take its steps; an order is required by a magistrate to decare someone a suspect. So there was still a few hours frame, it's Mignini th efirst who declared Knox needed a lawyer.

And the lawyer in fact was appointed within the provided legal time, even before her appearing before Matteini. Btw, just note: to say "from that minute on" it does not mean she had the right to actually have a counsel with the laywer; under art. 104 § 4 she cannot enfrce her right prior to hear apperance before a judge. So the lawyer can be appointed, but she cannot talk with him before a preliminary judge qustions her.

His excuse for continuing with the second interrogation, as he put it, was that if he did not question her and informed her he could act "as if only a notary", then it would not be in violation of the law he'd just quoted to the police at the questura.

There was no second interrogation. There are spontaneous statements. They are provided by the law. And, there has never been a claim, by the defence, tht a "second" interrogation ever occurred.
If a second interrogation occurred and the defence attorney never filed a complaint about it, they would be guilty of an extremely serious violation and thy should be disbarred.
But in fact, nor Knox, nor her defence attorneys claimed that a second interrogation took place. Such claim belongs only to forum supporters and to the recent Knox's book. It does not belong to the trial documentation. There was no claim about that. There has never been any second interrogation.

Is Andrea Vogt correct in quoting Mignini that the reason why Knox did not need a lawyer because Knox was "only a witness" all the way through to the 5:45 am termination of the second interrogation?

I don't trust your parsing of other people's statements, because you twist them al the time (see for example how you twist mine). This includes your parsig of Vogt's reports.
However, it is possible that Vogt's summary - whatever it was - was not precise or not complete as an explanation (for readers unaccustomed to legal things). That could be due to Vogt not recise knowledge about crimial investigation procedure (that would be normal). But also may entail a complexity of the system; as for example the fact that to say someone is "only a witness" may be a correct, even if the person is already a suspect. Why? Because the concepts of witness and suspect are not mutually exclusive. They are limited to specific charges and to specific sets of information. For example the code says that when a suspects offer statements about implication of another person who was not previously suspected for that case, the suspect takes the status of witness in those statements.

Both cannot be correct.

Actually, as I explained, they can even be both correct.
But I only vouch for Mignini: I don't actually know if Andrea Vogt was entirely precise on everything. I would be surprised if Andrea got all legal points always correct. I don't see why you would expect that, given the tons of bestialitis that were are conveyed by the average US networks when they attempt to describe legal events. Andrea was excellent in comparison. Sure she must have written some imprecision herself too, this is statistically unavoidable.

Using the guilter method of assigning guilt or innocence on the basis of the way people change their stories, Mr. Mignini is now guilty of any crime we can throw at him, don't you agree?

No.

Can you now make a case that Mr. Mignini should not be regarded as a lying liar? I am not talking about his character.... I cannot know his character or see into his heart. I am talking about the contradictory statements he's made in relation to the interrogations of Amanda Knox.

I don't see any contraditory statement. I only see people (like you) attempting to make up the law and flawed deductions upon it.

 

[acbytesla]

The figure is approximately 10x higher. The money comes from US sources (namely, I have the names of people in the media buisness). Why should I be kidding? This is not a game.

WOW!!! Talk about posting totally libelous comments!!!! You HAVE NO EVIDENCE to prove this claim. NONE, NADA, ZERO, ZILCH, ZIPPO. Yet you are willing to write it? You belong in jail Machiavelli along with your pal Mignini.

You just accused a long time member of your judiciary of accepting a bribe and fixing a trial. Since, you consider yourself such an authority of the law in Italy, just how many Italian laws are you accusing Hellmann of breaking? And how many laws are you breaking in doing this?

 

[anglolawyer]

The figure is approximately 10x higher. The money comes from US sources (namely, I have the names of people in the media buisness).

So we are taling about, rounding it off, about €2M. Unnamed people in the media business bribed Hellman and Zanetti to fix the result of the appeal. Who are these media people? Since you name H and Z I see no problem naming all the conspirators. If for some reason you can't or won't name them, at least give us a clue and tell us how you know. I hope it doesn't turn out to be based on the number of Ferraris you think Hellman can't afford on a judge's salary.

Are you sure no one reading here knows who you are, Mach? You could get in deep **** yourself with this nonsense.

Why should I be kidding? This is not a game.

I know it isn't. But you asked me the same question when I couldn't find something in the ISC motivation, remember? Something that turned out not to be there.

 

[RoseMontague]

You are correct I did ask for documentation concerning Mignini breaking the law (but I did not ask it slyly and I asked it as concerning the case against Amanda and Raffaele since that was what Mary's post was referencing). By documentation I meant a specific instance where it was recorded by the judicial system that he broke the law.

I know of investigations against Mignini having referred to them in a post further up the thread.

When I discuss this case (or any subject) I want it to discuss it as factually as possible. Where I am not sure of my knowledge I ask questions. Where I am unsure of what another person has posted I will ask for clarification. And where I have an opinion I will state it. Perhaps that is off putting to many (or all) but it is not meant to be that way.

I agree. Mignini's conviction was wiped clean, as if it never happened. Of course, we know it happened. If nothing else we can say he certainly is not well liked by all the judges and prosecutors in Italy. Either that or there are some that believe he is corrupt and he overstepped his authority in the MOF thingy.

So, no there is nothing in the official court record at the present time against Mignini and we know you trust him to even be the prosecutor of your case if you are ever arrested. Personally, I hope that never happens because I am pretty sure if he wants you convicted, he will get a conviction.

 

[moodstream]

I delayed that topic, for a) low priority (I have little interest for the statment itself) and b) time needed, the post would require a longer time.
So maybe later.

If the Corte Suprema di Cassazione gets that the phone conversation is only about the the knife, and gets that the phrase 'I was there' is not an admisson/confession Knox was at the cottage, then, if the Cassazione nevertheless supports the postition that the call is an indicator of guilt, the Cassazione unfairly and with intention creates a miasma of doubt and presumed guilt over Knox.

The other option is that the Cassazione correctly gets that the phone conversation is an admission of guilt, or does implicate her in the crime. This is always possible if conversation is missing from the transcript. However, this is an unwarranted and unreasonable assumption, because, when the transcript was read at trial, the prosecution did not object, it was entered into the record as correct, and no court has reported it as inaccurate, which is unimaginable if the call actually pointed towards guilt. Secondly, a version of the transcribed call was released by the police or prosecution, and never corrected. This version contains the relevant segment:

Curt: Well, here, here, here are the facts… we talked yesterday with the lawyer and asked him about the knife. Every time that they have to review an item we have an expert there that will review it with them. This is an example of… this knife of which they are talking about, they have never notified anything about the knife.
Edda: So, it’s ********!
Amanda: Is it ********?
Edda: It’s ********.
Curt: It’s complete ********. It’s a total fabrication.
Edda: That’s what they’re doing now. They are simply lying.
Curt: It’s all a fabrication…
Edda: Yes, to make someone break down.
Amanda: It’s stupid. I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there.

Amanda's line above follows from Edda's. It is unreasonable to conjecture from whole cloth a missing conversation between the two.

Because Machiavelli will not refute this, I can presume that Machiavelli supports the Cassazione in their purposeful, unlawful, and evil attempt to influence the appeals court of Florence against Knox.

What I am accusing you of Machiavelli, is knowingly aligning yourself with an attempt by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione to make Knox look guilty through the presentation of false information. That is, you realize that the information provided by the courts is not correct, yet you maintain that it is. I am accusing you of insincerely arguing for the guilt of Knox/Sollecito, out of some sort of grudge or at best mis-placed loyality. That's a very serious charge, Machiavelli, since it means that you are knowingly working to incarcerate two people unjustly for many years.


Shame on you, Machiavelli.

 

[RoseMontague]

There was no second interrogation.

Not according to Amanda Knox. I believe she is telling the truth. I believe Mignini is a lying liar. Let's see the tape.

 

[Diocletus]

Not according to Amanda Knox. I believe she is telling the truth. I believe Mignini is a lying liar. Let's see the tape.

Not according to the supreme court, either, which said that the statements arising from this "non-interrogation" were not "spontaneous." Therefore, they were elicited by Mignini, and we therefore know that this alleged "non interrogation" was actually . . . a real interrogation resulting in the making of non-spontaneous statements by Knox.

 

[christianahannah]

I agree. Mignini's conviction was wiped clean, as if it never happened. Of course, we know it happened. If nothing else we can say he certainly is not well liked by all the judges and prosecutors in Italy. Either that or there are some that believe he is corrupt and he overstepped his authority in the MOF thingy.

So, no there is nothing in the official court record at the present time against Mignini and we know you trust him to even be the prosecutor of your case if you are ever arrested. Personally, I hope that never happens because I am pretty sure if he wants you convicted, he will get a conviction.

I hope I am never in a position to be against a prosecutor (Mignini or otherwise), however, I feel most perform honorably in their profession and I believe this of Mignini. If a prosecutor acts dishonorably there are laws in most systems to correct this.

I don't think many consider Mignini corrupt or unjust. Even those who do not practice on the same side of the law as he does think this way (meaning defense vs. prosecution).

 

[Diocletus]

I agree. Mignini's conviction was wiped clean, as if it never happened. Of course, we know it happened.

They tried to wipe their Mignini clean, but it still stinks.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This makes no sense. Why, then, would she be appearing in the UK and Italy?

I assume Raffaele and Amanda’s appearance in the UK and Italian media was linked to raising public awareness with their forth coming appeal.

The answer is simple: they are attempting to defuse the prosecution-leak-fueled media circus that contributed to the conviction last time.

I haven’t seen that much in the media from either side this time round.

They are trying to get a level playing field for the trial. In other words, since the Italian justice system won't assure them a fair trial, they are doing their best to get it for themselves. Seems smart to me.

It makes sense for Amanda to try and win the hearts and minds of the American public, if as many here seem to indicate the Florence appeal is a forgone conclusion then as Paul Callan said extradition becomes a political decision and public opinion can and does impact political decisions.

 

[Briars]

Not according to Amanda Knox. I believe she is telling the truth. I believe Mignini is a lying liar. Let's see the tape.

She said today all of her 3.8 million is gone, do you believe that?