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

[Bill Williams]

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.

Yet, both you and Andrea Vogt say things which defend him as-if he's committed crimes. Why is that?

Good to see billyryan here. I echo his sentiment. Do you and Andrea Vogt have a plausible exit strategy?

 

[Diocletus]

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

This is the price we pay for them.

Those vehicles are all made in the north. We're talking about Perugians here. Hey make crappy candy with a nipple on top. Subtle.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's astrange expression, to "deflect" accusation to a person accused of murder.

Yes I am sure it is. When someone is framed for murder, when someone is forced to sign a document which is (to her) in a foreign language, which leads with the very words Mr. Mignini needs it to lead with to make is "legal" ("I wish to spontaneously declare"), they very thing that Mr. Mignini needed her to say (in Italian legalese to boot!).....

..... and then the ISC rules against it's admissibility.....

The game is fairly transparent how this mafia-fighting prosecutor operates.

Do you and Ms. Vogt have an exit strategy?

 

[billyryan]

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.

O god Bill can't think of anything I would rather see happen than to see Mignini's bribing of Supreme court judges to send this case back to appeal,leading to himself being investigated,if that day happens like all bullies he really is a coward,he will sing like a canary to save himself he will at that point tell the world why Andrea Vogt prostituted herself for him

 

[Machiavelli]

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

Sorry, if you have "no idea" about the alternative, you can't determine if something is logical.
It's like saying: it's logical to pay $25.000 for a Lexus, without knowing the averabge price of that Lexus.
You can't determine about a choice whether it is logical or not, unless you have made a comparison.

You are saying, it is logical that the SC jumps in defence of a lower court by at the cost of crushing an appeal court and (according to you) putting their own prestige and jurisprudence at stake, in order to "save the face".. of what? Of whom? Sounds a bit contradictory, doesn't it?

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, if you have "no idea" about the alternative, you can't determine if something is logical.
It's like saying: it's logical to pay $25.000 for a Lexus, without knowing the averabge price of that Lexus.
You can't determine about a choice whether it is logical or not, unless you have made a comparison.

You are saying, it is logical that the SC jumps in defence of a lower court by at the cost of crushing an appeal court and (according to you) putting their own prestige and jurisprudence at stake, in order to "save the face".. of what? Of whom? Sounds a bit contradictory, doesn't it?

Why are you even arguing with me? You believe you are right and you believe I am a dunce. THAT'S not logical!

What time is it there?

 

[Bill Williams]

O god Bill can't think of anything I would rather see happen than to see Mignini'g bribing of Supreme court judges to send this case back to appeal,leading to himself being investigated,if that day happens like all bullies he really is a coward,he will sing like a canary to save himself he will at that point tell the world why Andrea Vogt prostituted herself for him

I obviously cannot prove it, but if I've learned anything from arguing with Machiavelli it's always good to advance an opinion..... so take it for what it's worth. (Machiavelli seems to think I am someone who's worth wasting time with! How sad is that!)

My opinion: now that this is out of the hands of the PLE, Mr. Mignini has as much to fear as anyone. Whether intentional or not, the ISC reversing the acquittals, THEN sending it to Florence just may be the message meant for Mr. Mignini.

The ISC motivations report is, so I'm told, almost always written as a copy of the winning sides' arguments. And why not, they only really have a day to adjudicate things - and they had 15 other cases that day - not a lot of time for reholding a fact-finding trial!

There's a message here. And Andrea Vogt and Mr. Machiavelli have hitched their wagon to the wrong horse. My opinion.

 

[Mary_H]

Mignini did not "need" any other minutes. He explained why he god another minutes: because Amanda was not entirely satisfied with her interrogation, she wanted to say more. She wanted to say something. As she was given the possibility to talk more, she just did.
Just like she always did. Whenever she had the possibilty to make some manipulative spontaneous statement during the investigations and trial, she always did that, she was doing that all the time.

If Amanda had a right to a lawyer at a certain point, then it was inappropriate for the prosecution to accept what she said after that, even if she insisted. If they had been acting in good faith, they would have wanted to honor the law and protect the suspect's rights.

Amanda-as-manipulator makes as much sense as Amanda-as-Patrick's downfall. How does one manipulate oneself into a jail cell? Isn't that the opposite of manipulation?

The amount of power some people project onto Amanda is a measure of their fear and resentment of her.

 

[Bill Williams]

The amount of power some people project onto Amanda is a measure of their fear and resentment of her.

True. And Mr. Mignini's fear and resentment is channelled here through Mr. Machiavelli, and on her blog by Andrea Vogt.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes I am sure it is. When someone is framed for murder, when someone is forced to sign a document which is (to her) in a foreign language, which leads with the very words Mr. Mignini needs it to lead with to make is "legal" ("I wish to spontaneously declare"), they very thing that Mr. Mignini needed her to say (in Italian legalese to boot!).....

..... and then the ISC rules against it's admissibility.....

The game is fairly transparent how this mafia-fighting prosecutor operates.

Do you and Ms. Vogt have an exit strategy?

I think you are writing on forums claiming that a number people (possibly a big number) committed crimes or abuses.
Now, here there are also posters (acbtesla, RandyN etc.) who extend their accusation to really big numbers of people, as they say like that all Italians are corrupt, or that Italy is rotten as a culture or as a state, etc. I don't think there is a rational ground where you can contend with racism and prejudice so there is nothing to discuss with these people.
You instead, Bill, are seemingly focused on a number single individuals. Mignini, Massei, Vogt, Stefanoni... At least apparently.
You use some expressions like "forced to sign", and you bring allegations of abuses. You are making claims.

So the point is only this: whether you can prove your claims. There is really no other point of discussion.
You should only tell what are your claims of illegality or abuses, and what is your evidence. You are calling some people criminals, you are alleging actions. You have some burden of proof on your claims.
Until now, you have been shown to be wrong, your claim proven unfounded or false. Your latter statement about the SC still rings like the attempt to repeat something despite you have just been shown that it was unfounded and false. You have already been explained that the SC ruling is no evidence of violation of the rules. You have an obvious acceptance by all judges about other things.
So you are just without any argument, though you accuse me of "defending" or "deflecting"?

 

[billyryan]

I obviously cannot prove it, but if I've learned anything from arguing with Machiavelli it's always good to advance an opinion..... so take it for what it's worth. (Machiavelli seems to think I am someone who's worth wasting time with! How sad is that!)

My opinion: now that this is out of the hands of the PLE, Mr. Mignini has as much to fear as anyone. Whether intentional or not, the ISC reversing the acquittals, THEN sending it to Florence just may be the message meant for Mr. Mignini.

The ISC motivations report is, so I'm told, almost always written as a copy of the winning sides' arguments. And why not, they only really have a day to adjudicate things - and they had 15 other cases that day - not a lot of time for reholding a fact-finding trial!

There's a message here. And Andrea Vogt and Mr. Machiavelli have hitched their wagon to the wrong horse. My opinion.

It is very late in the part of the world where I live,I don't have the staying power of Machiavelli,I will log off now and ponder how Mignini would do in a prison yard,hopefully he has prepared for the doomsday scenario and is willing to betray the police and Stefanoni in a futile attempt to save himself

 

[Machiavelli]

If Amanda had a right to a lawyer at a certain point, then it was inappropriate for the prosecution to accept what she said after that, even if she insisted. If they had been acting in good faith, they would have wanted to honor the law and protect the suspect's rights.

I don't think the law agrees with you said. It says quite the opposite.

Amanda-as-manipulator makes as much sense as Amanda-as-Patrick's downfall. How does one manipulate oneself into a jail cell? Isn't that the opposite of manipulation?

You are confusing the result with the method.

The amount of power some people project onto Amanda is a measure of their fear and resentment of her.

Manipulation has nothing to do with the amount of power. Manipulation is an immature style of relationship based on deceit and staging, it is typical of children. It's what children do.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you are writing on forums claiming that a number people (possibly a big number) committed crimes or abuses.
Now, here there are also posters (acbtesla, RandyN etc.) who extend their accusation to really big numbers of people, as they say like that all Italians are corrupt, or that Italy is rotten as a culture or as a state, etc. I don't think there is a rational ground where you can contend with racism and prejudice so there is nothing to discuss with these people.
You instead, Bill, are seemingly focused on a number single individuals. Mignini, Massei, Vogt, Stefanoni... At least apparently.
You use some expressions like "forced to sign", and you bring allegations of abuses. You are making claims.

So the point is only this: whether you can prove your claims. There is really no other point of discussion.
You should only tell what are your claims of illegality or abuses, and what is your evidence. You are calling some people criminals, you are alleging actions. You have some burden of proof on your claims.
Until now, you have been shown to be wrong, your claim proven unfounded or false. Your latter statement about the SC still rings like the attempt to repeat something despite you have just been shown that it was unfounded and false. You have already been explained that the SC ruling is no evidence of violation of the rules. You have an obvious acceptance by all judges about other things.
So you are just without any argument, though you accuse me of "defending" or "deflecting"?

All of which leaves unanswered the question you keep deflecting. No matter. You continue to defend Mr. Mignini. You make arguments as-if Mignini HAS been accused of something.... and for some reason you respond to my posts when you think of me as a crackpot.

I do not think of you as a crackpot. I have no idea what either your or Ms. Vogt's motivation is. What I know is that you are one of the few to pass on the defence of Mignini, as if he needed defending. So does Ms. Vogt.

And you do it by a method that Mary_H has outlined.... making some 20 year old foreigner (to Italy) the scape goat for a wrongful prosecution.

Good for you. It is entirely your own business WHY you do it, but THAT you do it is for the readers here to see.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is very late in the part of the world where I live,I don't have the staying power of Machiavelli,I will log off now and ponder how Mignini would do in a prison yard,hopefully he has prepared for the doomsday scenario and is willing to betray the police and Stefanoni in a futile attempt to save himself

I also believe this is the fear of which Mary_H speaks. Now that the appeals level is out of the hands of the PLE, it threatens to come unraveled. I said about 18 months ago that Napoleoni would be thrown under the bus first. I stand by that. The only question is just how scandalous it will be to Italy to have someone like Mignini face (more) charges.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ciocc one up for the Italians

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

Nice bicycles, also. A working judical system not so much.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

nice way to untie the Gordian knot

Amanda-as-manipulator makes as much sense as Amanda-as-Patrick's downfall. How does one manipulate oneself into a jail cell? Isn't that the opposite of manipulation?

She is also a fantastic actress. She was able to give a spot-on impression of a person who has just been subjected to the Reid technique.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think the law agrees with you said. It says quite the opposite.

Then why is there any provision for suspects having lawyers written into the law?

You are confusing the result with the method.

Maybe you should change your description, then, from "she was manipulative" to "she was trying to be manipulative." When you say she was manipulative it sounds like you are saying she was successful at manipulation.

Manipulation has nothing to do with the amount of power. Manipulation is an immature style of relationship based on deceit and staging, it is typical of children. It's what children do.

My child never manipulated me. I did manipulate him quite a bit, though, since I was the one with the power and the strategies.

I think you are talking about something else. Why not provide a few examples of Amanda's immature style of relationship? Otherwise it sounds like you think Amanda was running the show.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda-as-manipulator makes as much sense as Amanda-as-Patrick's downfall. How does one manipulate oneself into a jail cell? Isn't that the opposite of manipulation?

She is also a fantastic actress. She was able to give a spot-on impression of a person who has just been subjected to the Reid technique.

It's a well known fact that Knox, before leaving for Italy, studied up on that Regina, Saskatchewan, teen who confessed to sexually assaulting another. When it was proven that he simply could not have done it.....

..... they asked him why he confessed. He said that after hours in interrogation protesting his innocence, he kind of snapped and thought, "Why not? Why not just confess?" And then he heard himself saying the dumbest things....

That was one of the cases in Canada where the Reid Technique was used, and it is now discouraged when used on teenagers.

Knox must have studied the case. She played the part perfectly. What an actress!

 

[Machiavelli]

All of which leaves unanswered the question you keep deflecting. No matter. You continue to defend Mr. Mignini. You make arguments as-if Mignini HAS been accused of something.... and for some reason you respond to my posts when you think of me as a crackpot.

I do not think of you as a crackpot. I have no idea what either your or Ms. Vogt's motivation is. What I know is that you are one of the few to pass on the defence of Mignini, as if he needed defending. So does Ms. Vogt.

And you do it by a method that Mary_H has outlined.... making some 20 year old foreigner (to Italy) the scape goat for a wrongful prosecution.

Good for you. It is entirely your own business WHY you do it, but THAT you do it is for the readers here to see.

You are now again deflecting on me, on posters. You should talk about your claims. Evidence of your claims.
I am not interested in Mignini. I am interested in you. In you, I mean you as a mob, in your mentality, in your beliefs and idolological system. I am interested in the media, in the opinion campaign, and I am interested in the machine which you belong to. It's a machine for political propaganda that builds false narratives and targets the functioning of powers, like justice, pursueing criminal purposes and methods, and relies also on criminal elements with ties to some government agencies (like Mario Spezi); this machine is what we call in Italian "macchina del fango".

I would like to see you put in discussion your claims. Speak about your beliefs. Look at your belifs with critical attitude, try to check what you can actually demonstrate. I am testing your mentality and your rational attitude. I want to see how you think, why you come to your conclusions.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are now again deflecting on me, on posters. You should talk about your claims. Evidence of your claims.
I am not interested in Mignini. I am interested in you. In you, I mean you as a mob, in your mentality, in your beliefs and idolological system. I am interested in the media, in the opinion campaign, and I am interested in the machine which you belong to. It's a machine for political propaganda that builds false narratives and targets the functioning of powers, like justice, pursueing criminal purposes and methods, and relies also on criminal elements with ties to some government agencies (like Mario Spezi); this machine is what we call in Italian "macchina del fango".

I would like to see you put in discussion your claims. Speak about your beliefs. Look at your belifs with critical attitude, try to check what you can actually demonstrate. I am testing your mentality and your rational attitude. I want to see how you think, why you come to your conclusions.

You and Andrea Vogt have a strange way of "not being interested in Mignini." You just built a pseudo-narrative involving Mario Spezi, which sounds an awful like the narrative Mr. Mignini would have us believe. You do it in the very post above!

Why do you and Andrea Vogt buy into it? What's your exit plan when it falls apart?