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

[Machiavelli]

Yeh, yeh. I'm sure there's someone stupid enough to buy your BS.

but the bottom-line is;

both Amanda and Raff were denied counsel while being given the 3rd degree for many hours, in the middle of the night.

The End.

No no, Knox released a spontaneous statement. This is what she and her defence always maintained, for five years.
While denied counsuel, rather tan being interrogated, she wrote further incriminating memoirs by which she told new lies and placed further false evidence. She did that on her own will and all alone.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the first memoriale

No no, Knox released a spontaneous statement. This is what she and her defence always maintained, for five years.
While denied counsuel, rather tan being interrogated, she wrote further incriminating memoirs by which she told new lies and placed further false evidence. She did that on her own will and all alone.

I wasn't going to say anything, but this is such a bald untruth that I changed my mind. One, Knox prefers to write than to talk, so the whole notion that she wanted to talk is nonsense. Two, even the first memoriale is a partial retraction if read honestly. It certainly shows mental confusion that would result from the Reid technique. The second memoriale is a complete retraction. Her letter to her lawyer confirms the second memoriale.

 

[Bill Williams]

No no, Knox released a spontaneous statement. This is what she and her defence always maintained, for five years.
While denied counsuel, rather tan being interrogated, she wrote further incriminating memoirs by which she told new lies and placed further false evidence. She did that on her own will and all alone.

Is this what Mr. Mignini tells you and Andrea Vogt to say in response to the blindingly obvious?

 

[Bill Williams]

You are saying it's logical that the SC annulls Hellmann-Zanetti with the aim of "saving face" to the Italian Judiciary?

What I am saying is that it's more logical than the conspiracy about Mssons Mr. Mignini wants you and Andrea Vogt to pass on.

 

[Diocletus]

No no, Knox released a spontaneous statement. This is what she and her defence always maintained, for five years.
While denied counsuel, rather tan being interrogated, she wrote further incriminating memoirs by which she told new lies and placed further false evidence. She did that on her own will and all alone.

The Supreme Court said it wasn't spontaneous

Stop lying.

 

[Diocletus]

You are saying it's logical that the SC annulls Hellmann-Zanetti with the aim of "saving face" to the Italian Judiciary?

The "face" they tried to save is mignini's face. Big mistake--they should have thrown him under the bus and washed their hands of this mess. Now they just look like jerkoffs. Stupid ones, too.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are simply parroting Mignini here. Mignini is lying.

You are parroting the defence. I'm not parroting Mignini: I am sticking at the documents. It's a fact that Amanda Knox released lying and manipulative statements all the time, in oral and written forms.

No one said that Knox, "wanted to say something." Not Knox, not anyone EXCEPT Mignini. You are simply repeating Mignini's fantasy.

Absolutely not: I am "repeating" the consequence of the implicit acceptance of the documents by Knox and by her defence. For days, months, and years.
Knox remained silent on the preliminary investigation hearing before Matteini. She could have changed her story; she could have claimed she was coerced; she could have retracted just by declaring that the previous statements were false; she could have claimed that she was interrogated by the prosecutor. Her defence could have claimed that she underwent an interrogation rather than a spontaneus statement.
In the subsequente days her defence could have claimed that there was ai interrogation rather than a spontaneous statement; they could have filed a complaint for that.
On her interrogation of Dec. 17. Amanda could have claimed that she underwent an interrogation by the prosecutor, she could have denied she willfully released and signed a spontaneous statement, she could have claimed that she was coerced or she could have just said that she lied under some pressure. Her defence could have claimed that by that date.
In her preliminary hearing before Micheli, when she spoke about her spontanepus statement, on year later, she could have claimed that she was interrogated. Instead she only said she "made a statement".
The defence never contested the nature of "spontaneous statment" of the document, never claimed it was an interrodation, not even disputed its lawfulness (they only objected to its usability).
I won't go on with further evidence because it's clear: all this has a consequence. The official position of Knox in the trial was that of acceptance of the existing documentation, they did not make any radical claim about it.

Moreover, there is also Anna Donnino. She is a witness. And she is credible.

He told Drew Griffin that he could tell simply by looking at Knox:

1) That she was afraid of Lumumba
2) That she was released from a great burden, and
3) That she needed to keep talking.​

No one other than Mignini says that. You are simply parroting the untruth that, factually, Knox needed to do this for herself. It's an untruth Mignini would like you to believe.

I don't need any Drew Griffin interview. I'm not based on any Griffin interview. The transcripts and statements and actions (and lack thereof) by the defence and by the witnesses simply speak themselves.

Mignini acted illegally even by his own definition of when he stopped Ficarra. Yes, I know you want to debate the word "illegally". Good for you.

No, I don't want to debate.
Simply, you are making up a story along your dreams, and you believe to that. The facts are you have no evidence to what you say. I don't even know what action your refer and what you mean by saying "acted illegally".
You have been already shown (and this was confirmed by all judges) that you don't have any illegal action to complain about.

Griffin's interview with Mignini is the very roadmap of the crime Mignini committed by goading her on saying, "You speak, I'll act as if only a notary."

Goading?
What do you mean exactly? So the alleged "crime" would consist in this?
And, about her false and manipulative hand written memoirs, are they also the result of some goading?

 

[Machiavelli]

The Supreme Court said it wasn't spontaneous

Stop lying.

Knox released a spontaneous statement. This is what she and her defence always maintained, for five years. They never objected to this state of documentation, they accepted it, this is a fact, whether you like it or not.

While denied counsuel, rather tan being interrogated, Knox wrote further incriminating memoirs by which she told new lies and placed further false evidence. Thus demonstrating that she intended to make statements; which are, incidentally, deceptive, false and accusatory statements. She did that on her own will. This is another fact, whether you like it or not.

Don't be ridiculous about the Supreme Court; btw the Court does not make such factual findings.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - you continue to blame the defence for Mignini's mistakes. In fact, that is the very way Mignini tries to defend himself.

One thing Mignini tries to do to defend himself is to constantly deflect to Amanda Knox.

It's what both you and Andrea Vogt continue to do.

What you miss is that Mignini's interview with Drew Griffin are Mignini's own words. And he is lying. And he's awkwardly lying. He tries to convince Griffin that he's the good guy by shutting down Ficarra's interrogation of Knox, and then he proceeds, telling us in his own words, to break the very law he'd quoted to Ficarra.

You can take Mignini's side all you want. So can Andrea Vogt. My view is that Mr. Mignini has as much to fear from the Florence court as anyone.

Your mileage obviously varies. You simply take Mr. Mignini's view and pass it on as if it is truth. Good for you. Good for Ms. Vogt as well.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I'm partly with CoulsdonUK in this... what counts, really, is what the judges decide, good, bad, corrupt, or indifferent.

Yet, when judges like Massei, for instance, play mind-games with their imaginings when judges like Massei could very well have ordered a recreation like Channel 5 did....

... meaning: Channel 5 pretty much destroyed the myth that the entry in through Filomena's window was even difficult, much less impossible.....

.... yet what Judge Massei did was substitute his own imaginings of what a burglar must have done, and for Massei he imagined that the burglar would have had to have gone up that wall three times in a difficult climb, and that the burglar would not have done that three times because it would have taken too long; risking exposure...

Those are Massei's imaginings, and he rendered a judicial decision partly on its basis. So CoulsdonUK is quite correct - they actually COULD find a video showing Rudy doing the thing alone, but a judge like Massei might prefer his own imaginings to video evidence.....
You get the drift. I think CoulsdonUK is just being practical here. Two innocents really ARE in danger of being sentenced to decades' worth of imprisonment for judges imaginings.

Of course, the rest of the world (except for some spots in England and perhaps all of Perugia) will see the process for what it is. One thing for sure, for most of the world (I mean if anyone is paying attention anymore) Italy's judicial system is on trial here.

I would have been impressed with the climbing window stunt, if they had walked across to the basketball court and offered any 20 something year old shooting hoops 50 Euros to climbing up to Filomena’s windows rather than an amateur rock climber (surprise, he found it easy) and that same guy off of the street could have been used to demonstrate how an individual could have subdued Meredith, but no they used a “karate” expert.

Anyway it was a very informative well researched “TV Show”, the rock thrown through the window stunt test nailed it for me, slampdunk.

Anyway, I doubt the appeal judges watched the show or any possible jurist.

 

[Machiavelli]

What I am saying is that it's more logical than the conspiracy about Mssons Mr. Mignini wants you and Andrea Vogt to pass on.

And:
1. do you believe that?
2. wouldn't it have been easier for the SC to just accept Hellmann-Zanetti and close the case, if they wanted to fix a PR problem and achieve a political/diplomatic result?

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox released a spontaneous statement. This is what she and her defence always maintained, for five years. They never objected to this state of documentation, they accepted it, this is a fact, whether you like it or not.

While denied counsuel, rather tan being interrogated, Knox wrote further incriminating memoirs by which she told new lies and placed further false evidence. Thus demonstrating that she intended to make statements; which are, incidentally, deceptive, false and accusatory statements. She did that on her own will. This is another fact, whether you like it or not.

Don't be ridiculous about the Supreme Court; btw the Court does not make such factual findings.

No she didn't. She signed something in a foreign language to her, using a "legalese" version of that language. And it was released by others. Once she became aware of the implications of being lied to about Lumumba - lied to by the police at interrogation - she took steps to reverse what she'd signed to.

Please stop merely offering what Mignini would have said in his own defence to these allegations of his misconduct. He's a big boy. He does not need either you or Andrea Vogt speaking for him on the internet.

 

[RoseMontague]

One of the first things I noticed about Amanda's appeal is how many times they put those little quote marks around “dichiarazioni spontanee”. I wonder if the air quote thing is popular in Italy as well. Pretty funny, imo.

 

[Bill Williams]

And:
1. do you believe that?
2. wouldn't it have been easier for the SC to just accept Hellmann-Zanetti and close the case, if they wanted to fix a PR problem and achieve a political/diplomatic result?

I have no idea. Perhaps Mr. Mignini can enlighten us, and you and Andrea Vogt can pass it on.

 

[Bill Williams]

One of the first things I noticed about Amanda's appeal is how many times they put those little quote marks around “dichiarazioni spontanee”. I wonder if the air quote thing is popular in Italy as well. Pretty funny, imo.

The thing that tips off that Knox did not do any of the writing of either the 1:45 am or the 5:45 memorandums, is the use of "I wish to spontaneously say...." to begin the second one.

What 20 year old foreigner knows to say that - specifically when Mr. Mignini claims he offered no guidance to her (except for graciously volunteering to be "only a notary"), because if he admitted he had it is no longer spontaneous!

How is it that Ms. Knox in her "confession" knows the exact legal phrase to use to start this off, when the whole issue of "spontaneity" is what this turns on?

It was a very clumsy framing job - and the ISC ruled it unusable at trial as a result.

 

[Antony]

I won't touch most idiocies in this post (or in your mind?) with my fishing rod. But while reading I was wondering - just my need to understand where your logicical standpoint leads - your "logical" theory so is that the Supreme Court quashing Hellmann-Zanetti had the purpose of "saving the face" of.. the Italian Judiciary ? Is that the (conspiracy) theory?

OK, Mach, let's have your justification of the SC ruling, given that their remit is to rule strictly on the application of law in the Hellman court, and not to challenge his interpretation of the evidence?

Where in the SC motivation does it make clear how Hellman supposedly applied the law incorrectly in acquitting AK and RS?

 

[Supernaut]

OK, Mach, let's have your justification of the SC ruling, given that their remit is to rule strictly on the application of law in the Hellman court, and not to challenge his interpretation of the evidence?

Where in the SC motivation does it make clear how Hellman applied the law incorrectly in acquitting AK and RS?

They make beautiful, BEAUTIFUL automobiles and motorcycles, the Italians.

This is the price we pay for them.

 

[billyryan]

Machiavelli;you come across as desperate in the last three posts,has how easy it was for Guede to enter the cottage by Philomena's window,as proved by the latest video, caused a little panic,I get the feeling somebody is soon going to pull the plug on this framing,have you your exit strategy well thought out and how about Andrea

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - you continue to blame the defence for Mignini's mistakes. In fact, that is the very way Mignini tries to defend himself.

I don't blame the defence at all. The defence (meaning the attorneys) had no blames. They followed a line based on reality. The defence has a responsibility not a blame. The documents the defence signed and those signed by magistrates are presumed truthful; they have a responsability to claim otherwise if they want to make that argument. Otherwise they accept them. Sometimes if you don't object that an object is false, it's the same as if you sign to its authenticity.
This is not the only thing. There are also testimonies, and there is also Knox's further own statements.

Mignini does not need to defend himself: he is not under trial, he is an anti-mafia prosecutor and now a deputy to the Prosecutor General in Umbria.

(...) constantly deflect to Amanda Knox.

Knox is currently a convict for murder awaiting the appeal that will take place on her request. She is also a felony convicted for a crme which is the type of perversion of justice known as Calunnia.
It's astrange expression, to "deflect" accusation to a person accused of murder.

What you miss is that Mignini's interview with Drew Griffin are Mignini's own words. And he is lying. And he's awkwardly lying.
He tries to convince Griffin that he's the good guy by shutting down Ficarra's interrogation of Knox, and then he proceeds, telling us in his own words, to break the very law he'd quoted to Ficarra.

You are lying, not him. I'm not sure you are completely unaware that what you say is glaringly contradicted by the true text of the interview itself. I quoted the snippet in Italian, where it is obvious that he does NOT say what you report. He never said he hsut down Ficarra interrogation. Anbsolutely never. What you say is false. This is obvous to any Italian who reads the words I pasted or the rest of the interview. But not to you: you make up your own story. Even in as you are facing of the obvious, the written text that belies your claim.

 

[Diocletus]

Don't be ridiculous about the Supreme Court; btw the Court does not make such factual findings.

That's true. Usually their findings of fact are wrong.