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

[RoseMontague]

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

Yes.

I have noticed her book sales rising again. Maybe she will garner enough to make it through the appeal expenses, maybe not.

 

[anglolawyer]

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).

Do you ever wonder whether there might be something exceptional here, christianahannah? This case has a special feature. It was 'solved' by Mignini himself, or at least with his very active involvement. We know beyond any question that his first crime theory was spectacularly wrong. Innocent text messages and other communications were completely misinterpreted. A rush to judgment preceded the evidence. The PM worked hard to have three people locked up, at least one of whom was entirely blameless. The entire world was told the case had been solved. We know how euphoric the police were from the blaring car horns.

Might we not expect a measure of professionnal emarrassment to follow from the growing realisation that things were emphatically not as they seemed and some resulting effect on the objectivity of the PM's approach to the case and his conduct? He would hardly be human otherwise and we have seen many prosecutors stick stubbornly to the wrong theory, sometimes taking their pejudices beyond the bounds of propriety. Is Mignini above all that?

 

[Diocletus]

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

As it should be.

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.

Yes, it does, but there's plenty of time for that later. The timing of the current interviews suggest that they are intended to mute the media over- exuberance associated with the upcoming trial. It would be impossible to have a fair trial under a media environment like that of the last trial.

 

[acbytesla]

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

I think there are two reasons for that. One, pretty much all the salacious moronic stories about sex games have been pretty much been debunked and have disappeared and two, the story is old. It has been hashed and rehashed so many times. Now we are left with the just the moronic machinations of the Italian courts.

I'm sure there will be a lot more articles written in the media about this case and people haven't totally lost interest, just that the sexy salaciousness as disappeared.

 

[Supernaut]

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).

This, and your previous protestation, that he's "a fair and just man" sort of reminds me of Franz Liebkind, author of "Spingtime for Hitler", and his reaction to the bersmirching of the beloved Adolf's name;

I am the author of this play! You are the victims of a hoax! These are not my words. The Fuhrer never said "baby". The Fuhrer was sweet, the Fuhrer was kind, the Fuhrer was good!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

that would be affirmative

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

Not only do I believe it, I predicted that all of her money would be used up in legal expenses, taxes, and living expenses for her parents in Italy, in this thread about nine months or so ago. I did not predict the CSC's ruling however.

 

[christianahannah]

Do you ever wonder whether there might be something exceptional here, christianahannah? This case has a special feature. It was 'solved' by Mignini himself, or at least with his very active involvement. We know beyond any question that his first crime theory was spectacularly wrong. Innocent text messages and other communications were completely misinterpreted. A rush to judgment preceded the evidence. The PM worked hard to have three people locked up, at least one of whom was entirely blameless. The entire world was told the case had been solved. We know how euphoric the police were from the blaring car horns.

Might we not expect a measure of professionnal emarrassment to follow from the growing realisation that things were emphatically not as they seemed and some resulting effect on the objectivity of the PM's approach to the case and his conduct? He would hardly be human otherwise and we have seen many prosecutors stick stubbornly to the wrong theory, sometimes taking their pejudices beyond the bounds of propriety. Is Mignini above all that?

Part of what is exceptional is using another country's laws and applying them to this case without fully understanding (or purposely misunderstanding) the Italian laws on which this case is being tried. Does this mean one has to agree with all these laws and not question them or that the Italian system is perfect? Absolutely not. But to denigrate a whole country, its people, and individuals involved in this case (judicial system) is wrong and shuts down conversation on what, where and if any reform of the system should be done.

There has been much misinformation written in comments and by journalists and pseudo journalists concerning Italy, its people, its judicial system and individuals involved in this case. But if one tries to correct that misinformation they are labeled and discussion more or less stops.

And the unkind and derogatory comments doesn't just apply to one side in this case. I quit posting on two forums because of the comments written about the defendants and their families. I have never felt these comments - on both sides - furthered the cause of justice.

I cannot speak personally of Mignini's heart and mind because I am not him but I don't think he is above making mistakes and I doubt he thinks he is. Is anyone? I think you place too much emphasis on him as solving the case (did he say that?) and what exactly was his first crime theory?

Do the impressions and theories of cases evolve as evidence is gathered throughout an investigation? I would be sure they do. Are there rush to judgments? Yes, some of this can be credited to the evidence given at an early time in a case. Hopefully safeguards are in place (laws) to correct a rush to judgment and along with more evidence collected those two things will rule out a person or theory concerning that case.

 

[christianahannah]

This, and your previous protestation, that he's "a fair and just man" sort of reminds me of Franz Liebkind, author of "Spingtime for Hitler", and his reaction to the bersmirching of the beloved Adolf's name;

I am the author of this play! You are the victims of a hoax! These are not my words. The Fuhrer never said "baby". The Fuhrer was sweet, the Fuhrer was kind, the Fuhrer was good!

Oh blah. Nice way to sort of go around Godwin's Law though.

 

[anglolawyer]

Part of what is exceptional is using another country's laws and applying them to this case without fully understanding (or purposely misunderstanding) the Italian laws on which this case is being tried. Does this mean one has to agree with all these laws and not question them or that the Italian system is perfect? Absolutely not. But to denigrate a whole country, its people, and individuals involved in this case (judicial system) is wrong and shuts down conversation on what, where and if any reform of the system should be done.

There has been much misinformation written in comments and by journalists and pseudo journalists concerning Italy, its people, its judicial system and individuals involved in this case. But if one tries to correct that misinformation they are labeled and discussion more or less stops.

And the unkind and derogatory comments doesn't just apply to one side in this case. I quit posting on two forums because of the comments written about the defendants and their families. I have never felt these comments - on both sides - furthered the cause of justice.

I cannot speak personally of Mignini's heart and mind because I am not him but I don't think he is above making mistakes and I doubt he thinks he is. Is anyone? I think you place too much emphasis on him as solving the case (did he say that?) and what exactly was his first crime theory?

Do the impressions and theories of cases evolve as evidence is gathered throughout an investigation? I would be sure they do. Are there rush to judgments? Yes, some of this can be credited to the evidence given at an early time in a case. Hopefully safeguards are in place (laws) to correct a rush to judgment and along with more evidence collected those two things will rule out a person or theory concerning that case.

Well, criticism of Italy's legal system was not what lay behind my question, although it seems to be it's a perfectly reasonable topic given the extraordinary state of affairs here.

Mignini was heavily involved in the enquiry from the start. He attended the scene on the day the body was discovered and he interviewed witnesses including John Kercher, for example, to whom he mainly put questions concerning Amanda on or about the 4th. I am sure he was kept fully appraised of developments in the case. He is said to have been roused from his slumbers as the earlier interrogation progressed on the night of the 5th-6th Nov.

The first crime theory was the one Amanda described in her two statements: she arranged to meet Lumumba by text, went out, met him, let him in and he killed Meredith in her and Raffaele's presence. Well that was the theory in the early hours of the 6th. Two days later it had evolved somewhat. By then she and Raffaele had been transformed into murderous thrill seekers. You can read about it in Matteini.

Both theories were wrong of course. The black guy was not a pudgy bar owner who knew both Amanda and Meredith but a lithe, athletic burglar in the middle of a crime wave which included a second storey, broken window entry and who scarcely knew any of the other parties.

I realise nobody's perfect and we all make mistakes etc. but this was not just any old everyday mistake. A married, respectable family man spent a month or so in custody accused of a vile crime. His bar was shut for months and he was faced with ruin. Just waiting a few days for the forensics would have been enough to tell diligent, competent investigators they had the wrong guy.

Of course investigations evolve but there comes a moment when the investigators nail their colours to the mast and say 'we got him/them!' and it goes without saying they need to be sure when they do that. Their judgment is on the line.

Against that background, don't you see the enormous potential for humiliation and embarrassment and how that might play into what followed?

 

[Grinder]

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to criticize Amanda in any way, shape or form.
I want to add only one more point. Predators intuitively recognize and pick their victims based on the vulnerability of the victims. Amanda was chosen by predators to play out a role for them because of who she was. If she were anyone different, then she might act the ways you guys want her to act, but she is a vulnerable person, and that's all there is to it. I know you want to be helpful, but I don't think she would interpret your remarks in that spirit.

I really don't think her opinion on how to handle the situation is necessarily the best. In fact, I don't think she has a clue. If she is in fact suffering from PTSD, then that is just another reason she shouldn't be her own spokesman. At one time she said something about the power of her voice. I think her advisers should make it clear that she doesn't have a powerful voice except for the choir.

I'm not necessarily asking her to act a way I want but rather to get off the stage. To me it is a failure to communicate to the audience she needs to communicate to, which isn't the PIP or FOA.

While I think she is innocent and certainly not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am not impressed by her communication skills in writing or verbal.

 

[Diocletus]

Just waiting a few days hours for the forensics would have been enough to tell diligent, competent investigators they had the wrong guy.

I couldn't resist a slight correction.

 

[acbytesla]

Part of what is exceptional is using another country's laws and applying them to this case without fully understanding (or purposely misunderstanding) the Italian laws on which this case is being tried. Does this mean one has to agree with all these laws and not question them or that the Italian system is perfect? Absolutely not. But to denigrate a whole country, its people, and individuals involved in this case (judicial system) is wrong and shuts down conversation on what, where and if any reform of the system should be done.

There has been much misinformation written in comments and by journalists and pseudo journalists concerning Italy, its people, its judicial system and individuals involved in this case. But if one tries to correct that misinformation they are labeled and discussion more or less stops.

And the unkind and derogatory comments doesn't just apply to one side in this case. I quit posting on two forums because of the comments written about the defendants and their families. I have never felt these comments - on both sides - furthered the cause of justice.

I cannot speak personally of Mignini's heart and mind because I am not him but I don't think he is above making mistakes and I doubt he thinks he is. Is anyone? I think you place too much emphasis on him as solving the case (did he say that?) and what exactly was his first crime theory?

Do the impressions and theories of cases evolve as evidence is gathered throughout an investigation? I would be sure they do. Are there rush to judgments? Yes, some of this can be credited to the evidence given at an early time in a case. Hopefully safeguards are in place (laws) to correct a rush to judgment and along with more evidence collected those two things will rule out a person or theory concerning that case.

Respectfully christianahannah, Mignini's actions go far behind innocent mistakes. Would you consider it a mistake for him to put every day average people in isolation and deprive them of legal counsel? Italy allows this only in organized crime situations. Yet Mignini did this with Amanda, Raffaele and the journalist Mario Spezi in the Monster of Florence case. These aren't mistakes, they are a deliberate misuse of his office and an infringement on the civil rights of others.

As for commenting about Italy's laws, does one have to have a comprehensive knowledge of the laws of Italy to judge that some of the laws in Italy have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Does one have to have a comprehensive understanding of their entire legal system to judge whether rulings by their courts don't pass simple common sense
reasoning? I personally DON'T think so.

There is NO system that is perfect on that we agree, but some are much better than others. Unfortunately, Italy judicial system is systemically dysfunctional. Not only for Amanda and Raffaele, but for the citizens of Italy. This is not just my opinion but a significant number of Italian judges, journalists and politicians. This is not a secret. The citizens in Italy know this but seemingly are resigned to the dysfunction thinking they can do little to resolve the problem.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.



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

Machiavelli - it is amazing the spin you put on things. I will not be surprised to see Ms. Vogt blogging about this in the future.

You and Ms. Vogt are virtual press agents for Mr. Mignini.

The source of the "two interrogations" is Mr. Mignini himself. He specifically tells Drew Griffin that when Ficarra reported that certain "admissions" had been made, resulting in the 1:45 am statement, that he himself quoted the law to Ficarra and stopped the process, because Knox was now a suspect and had rights.

This is what Mignini tells Drew Griffin. You can read it for yourself. Mignini even references the applicable law.

THEN, Mignini's portion of the events of Nov 5/6 begins, as Mignini relates which is "the second interrogation" because as Mignini tells it he'd not bee there for the first one. At the second he relates to Griffin, without asking her if it was true, that she looked like she needed to make more spontaneous statements. Also without asking her he said it was clear that she was afraid of Patrick Lumumba. He also said, without asking her, that she looked relieved of a great burden.

That is what Mignini said to Drew Griffin. In 2010. And the only other thing Mignini tells Griffin is that he from that point on, "I acted as if only a notary," so as so that Mignini would be complying with the very legislation he'd quoted to Ficarra.

Did Mignini lie to Griffin or was he telling the truth?

Now Andrea Vogt is reporting on a change of story. Now there is only one interrogation, apparently with Mignini there throughout, and apparently with Knox considered "a witness" throughout.

Is Andrea Vogt lying for Mignini? Both accounts cannot be true. They both claim to be from Mr. Mignini.

I would think that as his chief internet press agent, you'd get this story straight - BEFORE levelling criminal libel at Judges Hellmann and Zanetti?

Just how far are you and Ms. Vogt willing to go in being Mr. Mignini's press agents?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let's talk about reform

But to denigrate a whole country, its people, and individuals involved in this case (judicial system) is wrong and shuts down conversation on what, where and if any reform of the system should be done.

What reforms do you think that Italy needs with respect to its judicial system, either based on this case or based on other cases with which you are familiar?

 

[acbytesla]

I really don't think her opinion on how to handle the situation is necessarily the best. In fact, I don't think she has a clue. If she is in fact suffering from PTSD, then that is just another reason she shouldn't be her own spokesman. At one time she said something about the power of her voice. I think her advisers should make it clear that she doesn't have a powerful voice except for the choir.

I'm not necessarily asking her to act a way I want but rather to get off the stage. To me it is a failure to communicate to the audience she needs to communicate to, which isn't the PIP or FOA.

While I think she is innocent and certainly not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am not impressed by her communication skills in writing or verbal.

I respectfully disagree with you Grinder. While like you, I think Amanda has room to improve. I don't think she is hurting herself and I don't think Amanda can afford to get off the stage. I think she is doing what she HAS to be doing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

agree

As for commenting about Italy's laws, does one have to have a comprehensive knowledge of the laws of Italy to judge that some of the laws in Italy have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Does one have to have a comprehensive understanding of their entire legal system to judge whether rulings by their courts don't pass simple common sense reasoning? I personally DON'T think so.

Ac, Good post.

 

[anglolawyer]

I couldn't resist a slight correction.

My gast has never been so flabbered.

 

[Briars]

Not only do I believe it, I predicted that all of her money would be used up in legal expenses, taxes, and living expenses for her parents in Italy, in this thread about nine months or so ago. I did not predict the CSC's ruling however.

Do you think she paid Patrik the money she owes him yet?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my opinion on a just solution

Do you think she paid Patrik the money she owes him yet?

I think that Patrik should be made to pay for all of the times he has slandered her. He kept repeating that she never apologized to him, when in fact she apologized so many times I got sick of hearing it.

 

[Diocletus]

Do you think she paid Patrik the money she owes him yet?

No, I do not. He could go to the US to attempt to enforce the judgment, but the judgment would be collaterally attacked on grounds that it is the result of what probably constitutes torture under applicable international law. His newspaper interview would be Exhibit A.

He'll get his money if she ever has any Italian assets, if not, then he's probably SOL.

ETA: Come to think of it, it would be awesome if he would try this. Then we would potentially have a US court judgment that she was tortured, which would pretty much assure that she would never be extradited. Maybe I will buy Patrick's judgment for a few hundred bucks and try to enforce it in Seattle.