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

[Planigale]

Before I am accused of a conflict of interest certain allegations have been made about small carnivorous marsupials in what I can only describe as a tabloid article in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1310691110). I would like to make it clear planigales are not promiscuous and do not participate in orgies resulting in the death of their partners. Those are entirely different genera, but I shall not be risking a visit to Italy in the near future.

 

[billyryan]

Spezi stands now indicted on multiple charges.
The Supreme Court has sent him to trial.

Is he charged with making false claims,about a satanic rite as a motive,if Mignini says he never suggested that, why not

 

[Bill Williams]

.. fear and desperation ?!

Bill, you are a paranoid.

Not me. I find that fearful and desperate people often make assertions and claims and then do not back them up.

You claim to have the trial documents demonstrating that Mignini never claimed a "Satanic Rite" theory of the crime.

But then you do not post them, you simply make the assertion.

You claim that Amanda Knox could choose not to sleep, and not experience deprivation symptoms associated with this choice.

You claim that Hellmann and Zanetti were paid off to acquit by the Masons, yet you do not demonstrate this - albeit that you know the amount of Euros it took to accomplish this.

All the while you claim that the Italian legal system is immune from corruption, and that when I claim corruption on the part of Mignini - you accuse me of defaming Italy.

You make assertions about Andrea Vogt's claim that Knox said, "I was there," meaning that this was a condession as to being at the cottage. And (as per upthread) you claim to know that Knox used some hidden form of Mafia-code language to achieve this.

I think this line of attack from you is desperate, that's all. I think you are afraid that the Nencini court will return another acquittal, and THEN the ball can get rolling in Italy to hold Mignini to account for his crimes....

.... as well as to hold Andrea Vogt to account for twittering lies around the planet.

Your mileage will vary.

 

[LondonJohn]

Before I am accused of a conflict of interest certain allegations have been made about small carnivorous marsupials in what I can only describe as a tabloid article in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1310691110). I would like to make it clear planigales are not promiscuous and do not participate in orgies resulting in the death of their partners. Those are entirely different genera, but I shall not be risking a visit to Italy in the near future.

Hmmm, something tells me a planigale would have had no trouble scaling the wall to Filomena's window. Where were you on the night of 1st November 2007? And do you have very sharp teeth compatible with one of the neck wounds?

 

[toto]

I find your post in the last times sometimes rather interesting, I mean they express somehow a more balanced view than your usual previous record.

About the idea of cryptic language. Well, I'm not sure that most American citizens won't see that; however I am ready to believe that in other parts of the world - the US in particular - many people may be not used to perceive these messages, at least not as much as Italians.

In this case, the perception of 'cryptic language' which is basically a blackmailing message to the accomplice, is just the obvious consequence of the message itself. For example, let's put a logical question (se how you would answer to it):
In a murder investigation where a knife was used to stab or slite the trhoat, the witness (or suspect) A, after explaining he/she has confused memories, unrequested, tells the police: "I remember I saw blood on the hands of Mr. X". Does this mean the person A intends to place evidence against Mr. X? Please chose an answer:
yes/no

If you answered "yes", I would say you answer was correct; it means, what I think is that it is the logical answer.
The answer is "yes", the witness/suspect A is consiously placing evidence against Mr. X.
It is theoretically possible that the person did not mean to place such evidence; however, I think that - albeit theoretically possible - the hypothesis is not reasonable. It is intrinsically extremely unlikely that the person A - given that he/she has a normal brain - is unaware that he/she is placing evidence against Mr. X.

Knox's memoir contains also another statement, the one where she says: "I am aware Raffaele has placed evidence against me". (I quote by memory).
So the writer is also aware that Mr. X has placed evidence against her. This emphasizes the concept that she seems to be aware about what placing evidence agaisnt an accomplice means.

Surely the possible answers would be yes/no/don't know?

 

[LondonJohn]

Surely the possible answers would be yes/no/don't know?

It's also a totally false equivalence that Machiavelli is suggesting.

Here's an example to show why. Suppose I had had a drink with my friend Mr X last night, and we had parted company at 10pm. Suppose Mr X's girlfriend was murdered last night, and police called me in for questioning as a potential witness. They might say: "Now we know that the murder was committed some time after 10pm. Tell us about your evening with Mr X."

I would tell them "Well, I last saw Mr X at 10pm, which is when we parted company".

Does that mean I was "placing evidence against" Mr X? No - it would mean I was telling the police what I knew.

Likewise, Knox appears to have been grasping at anything in order to try to help the police. It in no way demonstrates that the "blood on the hands" remark was some sort of way of implicating Sollecito, nor that it was some sort of "warning" to Sollecito that she might "drop him in it". What's more, it's preposterous and nastily biased to have interpreted this remark of Knox's in this way. All that it implies is that Knox thinks she remembered Sollecito having dirty, bloody hands from cleaning the fish (which is, in fact, totally consistent with the meal that they did in fact eat that night, and the fact that the fist needed to be prepared before cooking).

Unbeknown to the originator of this little theory about Knox's "blood on the hands" remark to police, the theory tells us an awful lot more about its originator - and his demonstrably poor reasoning - than it does about Knox or her motives.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's also a totally false equivalence that Machiavelli is suggesting.

Here's an example to show why. Suppose I had had a drink with my friend Mr X last night, and we had parted company at 10pm. Suppose Mr X's girlfriend was murdered last night, and police called me in for questioning as a potential witness. They might say: "Now we know that the murder was committed some time after 10pm. Tell us about your evening with Mr X."

I would tell them "Well, I last saw Mr X at 10pm, which is when we parted company".

Does that mean I was "placing evidence against" Mr X? No - it would mean I was telling the police what I knew.

Likewise, Knox appears to have been grasping at anything in order to try to help the police. It in no way demonstrates that the "blood on the hands" remark was some sort of way of implicating Sollecito, nor that it was some sort of "warning" to Sollecito that she might "drop him in it". What's more, it's preposterous and nastily biased to have interpreted this remark of Knox's in this way. All that it implies is that Knox thinks she remembered Sollecito having dirty, bloody hands from cleaning the fish (which is, in fact, totally consistent with the meal that they did in fact eat that night, and the fact that the fist needed to be prepared before cooking).

Unbeknown to the originator of this little theory about Knox's "blood on the hands" remark to police, the theory tells us an awful lot more about its originator - and his demonstrably poor reasoning - than it does about Knox or her motives.

Yes, pretty simple. You didn't have to bend over backwards and come up with a Mafia code or anything. Sometimes I think Machiavelli has a pretty fanciful imagination the way he interprets simple things into some convoluted offer you can't refuse.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not me. I find that fearful and desperate people often make assertions and claims and then do not back them up.

Well, I pull a veil on how 'logical' this reason appears to be. And how ironical, when made on your part (the innocentisti).

You claim to have the trial documents demonstrating that Mignini never claimed a "Satanic Rite" theory of the crime.

But then you do not post them, you simply make the assertion.

Just a moment: I said I can quote the document (and do the translation).
I also pointed out that you already have a copu of the prosecutions' speech by the way, so you already have plenty of material.
I asked if anyone wanted me to paste a quote. Nobody said 'yes', unless I missed it.

However, I also point out that something else happened: several people on this forum asserted that the burden of proof was on me (or on the prosecution) to demonstrate that Mignini did not put forward a Satanic ritual scenario. I found this assertion extremely remarkable. In fact all I wanted to see was if you would express that position. Obviously I won't attempt to demonstrate this to people who think the burden of proof is on the prosecution, on principle I would never play a game (a discussion) based on such 'rules'. It's against my principles.
But I can translate quotes of Mignini's speech, if you are interested in assessing honestly what he said.

You claim that Amanda Knox could choose not to sleep, and not experience deprivation symptoms associated with this choice.

I claimed that there is no basis to claim that Knox suffered any significant symptoms of sleep deprivation, that could have any relevance in her mental capability.
Even less, that could be related to what she actually said and wrote.
I think this is quite self-evident, actually. And I find curious that you say that I'm the person who makes claim that cannot back, because you were the one who made some claim about Knox's mental impairment as effect of severe syndrome of sleep deprivation, not me! You should back what you say with evidence, and it's you who is unable to back your claim with any kind of evidence of with facts consistent with reality.

You claim that Hellmann and Zanetti were paid off to acquit by the Masons, yet you do not demonstrate this - albeit that you know the amount of Euros it took to accomplish this.

You don't seriously think that I 'demonstrate' a judiciary corruption case on a forum? I said I have enough information to darw some conclusions. You may not have the same information I have. However, you should have some information already, at least enough to have some suspicion, just if you consider the 'errors' these judges did, described by the Supreme Court. Are you ready to believe, doubt-free, this kind of error-set is likely to be committed by judges in good faith?

All the while you claim that the Italian legal system is immune from corruption, and that when I claim corruption on the part of Mignini - you accuse me of defaming Italy.

Well, actually the anti-Italian rants and prejudicies are mostly from other posters: Diocletus, RandyN, acbytesla, in a different way RoseMontague, in a lesser degree Mary H, and some others.

Immunity from corruption has never been a claim on my part. But of course, if you claim corruption on the part of Mignini, I accuse you of making wild claims. Because you are unable to back your claims in any way.
But now I'm not that interested in 'accusing' you after all: I am rather interested in how you rationally back your claims, what is their extent, or what motivates you. Or how can you tolerate that such claims of yours are unverified and unproven, without feeling the need to put them in discussion or check them.

You make assertions about Andrea Vogt's claim that Knox said, "I was there," meaning that this was a condession as to being at the cottage. And (as per upthread) you claim to know that Knox used some hidden form of Mafia-code language to achieve this.

Again, the problem with Andrea Vogt is only your fixation against her. Your insistence that she is 'unbalanced', when you lack any critical attitude about the media sources who are just completely unbalanced, manifestly hypocritical and unreliable, they offer disinformation, and you don't criticize them (starting from Dempsey, to say the most insignificant one). This looking for 'unbalance' into Andrea Vogt's reporting on your part, on the part of the friends of Knox-PR-Goterty Marriott guys, is something I find disturbing, and quite outraging.

I think this line of attack from you is desperate, that's all. I think you are afraid that the Nencini court will return another acquittal, and THEN the ball can get rolling in Italy to hold Mignini to account for his crimes....

... there is no laughing emoticon on this forum ....

.... as well as to hold Andrea Vogt to account for twittering lies around the planet.

Again. You accusing others of twittering lies. Here you are again. And what 'lie', this time?

 

[Mary_H]

But it's plain false. The facts are, Mignini just prosecuted three people. The prosecution did not engieneer any media campaign: what they had to say, they said it in court.
And - this is almost an irony - it seems like people here don't even know what Mignini actually said in court.
I just don't recall a single comment Mignini ever made against Knox outside the courtroom.
And as for what he said in the courtroom, the first thing he said were in 2008, before Micheli and behind closed doors, and there was nothing defamatory - except the fact that it is an accusation speech in a murder case.

Mignini didn't have to say anything outside the courtroom, because the press were inside copying down his words.

No, just I didn't understand the point.
It is not illegal to "use" the media. In particular, it is not necessarily illegal to leak information, unless it's classified information or legally non-publishable material.
It is illegal to make false claims about other people, like saying "Mr. X did this", when it's false.

The point is that trial materials could be made classified and non-publishable if the judicial system wanted it that way.

Well Perugia is a place (a city with 160,000 residents and hundreds of thousands visitors), not a person.
Then, as you say the media engineered a campaigh against Sollecito and Knox, well, that's a very disputable claim. I actually read of this case from the Italian press and did not notice any partitularly nasty attitude by the press, so actually I wonder what press you refer to; what articles and what newspapers you are thinking about.
Were Manuela Sarzanini and Meo Ponte orchestrating a campaign against three no-ones (don't forget Rudy Guede)? It's hardly so. Where is this defamatory campaign?

The bottom line is that most Italians believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. They have not received balanced coverage.

Reporting pages of Knox's diary, the written note she wrote herself, is that a defamatory campaign? Or is it reporting true documents?

"Who me?" (Do we have an angel-with-a-halo emoticon here?)

Everyone who publishes something has a choice about whether or not to publish it. When there is no constructive reason for publishing work that will be harmful to the reputation of the subject but it is published anyway, then it is willful defamation.

Actually he said this at the preliminary hearing. Before judge Micheli, there was where the prosecution adressed the media campaign most.

Cite?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>If you answered "yes", I would say you answer was correct; it means, what I think is that it is the logical answer.
The answer is "yes", the witness/suspect A is consiously placing evidence against Mr. X.
It is theoretically possible that the person did not mean to place such evidence; however, I think that - albeit theoretically possible - the hypothesis is not reasonable. It is intrinsically extremely unlikely that the person A - given that he/she has a normal brain - is unaware that he/she is placing evidence against Mr. X.

Knox's memoir contains also another statement, the one where she says: "I am aware Raffaele has placed evidence against me". (I quote by memory).
So the writer is also aware that Mr. X has placed evidence against her. This emphasizes the concept that she seems to be aware about what placing evidence agaisnt an accomplice means.

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Dan O.]

It's you who actually pretend my post doesn't exist.

I never deny the existence of any post. I only deny the existence of truth within some posts.

I am obviously not considering any argument which does not stem from the facts and from the most obvious common-sense inference; and one fact is that it was picture that a Britis newspaper picked from a photo agency, and belonged to a set of photos.

Of course it belonged to a set of photos. That was part of my initial question: How many photos of the crime scene were taken by that little camera?

There was a big set of photos in the case file, not just one.
If you assert one particular picture was not one from that set of photos and was from some peculiar camera, then you should prove it first place. I don't know the camera used for that photo specifically, but I assert instead that it was specifically a picture taken from one set of pictures which was owned by a British photo agency. And (the original, in that set) has same features of the others from the same set.

You claim to be familiar with this set of photos. Can you produce an index or proof sheet of the set?

The rest, as I said, is pure nonsense. Whoever took that specific picture (and you have no proof anyway to say who did it) makes no difference. It doesn't change the fact that the theory itself is nonsense. And i point out again, anyway: you have not even a proof Mignini was the person who took the photo! Your photo is not "evidence" of something. (btw, Mignini visited the scene on Nov. 2., but - if I recall correctly - phenophtaleine was used in the small bathroom on Dec. 18.)

We have video evidence of a short fat perp taking a photo of the bathroom with a little pocket camera. The photo that was published was taken at a lower angle than the official file photo and with a flash that was much closer to the lens than the photos taken with the Nikon.

We also know from court testimony that the bathroom was pinkified by the 6th of November

Domenico Profazio Hyacinth, then leader of the Flying Squad in Perugia, after hearing of 27.2.2009 (Massei page 94)
"I did not enter the small bathroom at via della Pergola at all on November 4, and I only saw it on the 6th when it was totally pink because an appropriate substance had been used to enhance the forensic traces".​

And all this: anyway, it doesn't change the fact that the picture was never published in Italy (I think the first to publish it was Frank Sfarzo). Doesn't change the fact that Perugians anyway don't read the Daily Mirror (neither they know that the Daily Mirror exists). It doesn't change the fact that preliminary judges couldn't care less about what is published anyway, since judges and courts have the investigation files. Doesn't change the fact that the Daily Mirror chose their picture picking it from a set at a photo agency. It doesn't change the fact that what goes on a tabloid dosen't bring any kind of advantage to the prosecution. And it doesn't change the fact that the picture was leaked in the UK while Mignini lives in Perugia and doesn't even speak English.

None of this changes the fact that a short fat prep was taking photos of the crime scene during an official investigation and those photos are not part of the case file. Does Mignini know anyone that might act as an intermediary to traffic those photos to the press?

Nothing changes these facts. Even, whoever took the picture, whoever gave it more or less confidentially, more or less officially to parties, to the Kerchers, to lawyers or others, or whoever then leaked it in the UK press market: nonthing of this changes nothing about the basic facts. The facts do not allow your theory of media manipulation to stand.

What theory? I am only presenting verifiable facts. You on the other hand are either lying about your connections or are deliberately hiding facts such as the identity of the short fat perp with the camera

 

[Machiavelli]

It's also a totally false equivalence that Machiavelli is suggesting.

Here's an example to show why. Suppose I had had a drink with my friend Mr X last night, and we had parted company at 10pm. Suppose Mr X's girlfriend was murdered last night, and police called me in for questioning as a potential witness. They might say: "Now we know that the murder was committed some time after 10pm. Tell us about your evening with Mr X."

I would tell them "Well, I last saw Mr X at 10pm, which is when we parted company".

Ms. Knox did not say that she parted from Mr. X. She said that she remembered of having seen blood on Mr. X's hands.

Moreover, she said this in the context of a recollection of events in which her memories are mostly defined as 'images' - she has flashes of Patrick raping and murdering Meredith in her memories, and "the truth is" she "doesn't know what the truth is". And in which she points out that she is aware that Sollecito placed false evidence against her.

In this context, she drops in a detail she is adding to the rest of what she said against Patrick. In other words she is shifting suspicious images from Patrick alone, to "maybe Patrick maybe Sollecito".

This is a factual content of the message. And you say it's invlountary?
You say that it is nasty and unfair to consider her writing as the voluntary expressing of a content?
I think it's reasonable to assume that this is exactly what she intends to say, that this shifting of suspicious memories is something she is well aware of. My opinion.

I point out again: she doesn't place just any memory. She places an image of blood on someone's hands.
This is not a common, ordinary memory/event like meeting someone or parting company at 10 pm. The sight of blood on someone's hand is an extremely uncommon and 'violent' memory, especially if associated to a murder investigation and to Solelcito placing "evidence"; it is also a visual memory, and with a very strong graphic impact.
It also would be irrelevant as a memory if it actually belonged to a context like cleaning fish, in that case it would not be something the police could ever be interested in, anyway this mentioning Sollecito would be out of register in the memoir where she "clarifies" things that have to do with memories of herself in the via della Pergola and her being a witness of Patrick.

Likewise, Knox appears to have been grasping at anything in order to try to help the police.

Grasping at anything, but in order to help herself, as more fitting to her style, and with everything else she said and did (anyway, whoever finds himself/herself in the position of having just been arrested and suspected of a murder, would likely think about himself and think very carefully about whatever he/she says).

It in no way demonstrates that the "blood on the hands" remark was some sort of way of implicating Sollecito, nor that it was some sort of "warning" to Sollecito that she might "drop him in it". What's more, it's preposterous and nastily biased to have interpreted this remark of Knox's in this way. All that it implies is that Knox thinks she remembered Sollecito having dirty, bloody hands from cleaning the fish (which is, in fact, totally consistent with the meal that they did in fact eat that night, and the fact that the fist needed to be prepared before cooking).

As I said, if the meal had already taken place that night (btw Sollecito does not testify about such meal) there would be no reason for bringing up exactly that specific image. One thing to bear in mind (this is a semiotics principle) is that any communication act has an intention; a purpose, has the function of conveing something. All things we say or signs we make to communicate tend to follow this rule. In other words, people always mean to say something. So here Knox's choice to write down that memory would be like saying: "I remember noticing Sollecito's hair had a blonde reflection. Maybe it was while he was preparing fish".
Does it make sense to chose that particular memory and image?
Is the choice completely random? (she could chose to say "I remember there was this program on tv; or I remember we listened to this song; or I remember we cooked a large cabbage": this could have an obvious function, she says that to demonstrate that she remembers details that might be verified and might make her look credible).
But she doesn't say something that has a function. Is it completely devoid of any function? Has no purpose and no logic? Or, what function of this message could be a logical one?

 

[Mary_H]

I think it's simply utterly foolish, beyond any sense of reality, to belive the prosecution gave crime scenes to the press.
It is obviously also an unfounded wild claim.
It would be also a complete nonsense to do so, because it doesn't offer absolutely any legal advantage. It would be even more nonsense to publish them in another country, on newspapers which the Perugians will never read.

Speaking of newspapers the Perugians will never read, here is a British paper reporting on what they got from the Italian papers, one month after the crime:

The Italian press has been captivated by this sweet-looking, expensively-educated young woman who has been described as a luciferina with the face of an angel.

And photographs of Amanda Knox are frequently accompanied by images of Pinocchio -- with a very long nose.

The speculation is that, despite her wholesome appearance, Amanda Knox could be la grande orchestratrice of a terrible crime.

(...) But the tragic incident Amanda Knox was linked to was beginning to have all the appearances of a gruesome group-sex crime. According to the investigating team, Amanda Knox is placed at the crime scene by a bloodstain on a tap.

Investigators have produced a psychological profile of Amanda Knox which, translated by the Italian news agency ANSA, describes her as having a "multi-level personality" and being "'self-possessed, shrewd, cunning and, at the same time, naive".

She was also said to have no inhibitions and was subject to any impulse, "even those which could lead to uncontrolled and violent behaviour".

Investigators said her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was "attracted to violence" and possessed a "complex and, in certain respects, disturbing personality."

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...erina-with-the-face-of-an-angel-26337393.html

And this sort of thing went on for two more years before the decision of the first trial.

 

[Mary_H]

Ms. Knox did not say that she parted from Mr. X. She said that she remembered of having seen blood on Mr. X's hands.

Moreover, she said this in the context of a recollection of events in which her memories are mostly defined as 'images' - she has flashes of Patrick raping and murdering Meredith in her memories, and "the truth is" she "doesn't know what the truth is". And in which she points out that she is aware that Sollecito placed false evidence against her.

In this context, she drops in a detail she is adding to the rest of what she said against Patrick. In other words she is shifting suspicious images from Patrick alone, to "maybe Patrick maybe Sollecito".

This is a factual content of the message. And you say it's invlountary?
You say that it is nasty and unfair to consider her writing as the voluntary expressing of a content?
I think it's reasonable to assume that this is exactly what she intends to say, that this shifting of suspicious memories is something she is well aware of. My opinion.

I point out again: she doesn't place just any memory. She places an image of blood on someone's hands.
This is not a common, ordinary memory/event like meeting someone or parting company at 10 pm. The sight of blood on someone's hand is an extremely uncommon and 'violent' memory, especially if associated to a murder investigation and to Solelcito placing "evidence"; it is also a visual memory, and with a very strong graphic impact.
It also would be irrelevant as a memory if it actually belonged to a context like cleaning fish, in that case it would not be something the police could ever be interested in, anyway this mentioning Sollecito would be out of register in the memoir where she "clarifies" things that have to do with memories of herself in the via della Pergola and her being a witness of Patrick.

Grasping at anything, but in order to help herself, as more fitting to her style, and with everything else she said and did (anyway, whoever finds himself/herself in the position of having just been arrested and suspected of a murder, would likely think about himself and think very carefully about whatever he/she says).

As I said, if the meal had already taken place that night (btw Sollecito does not testify about such meal) there would be no reason for bringing up exactly that specific image. One thing to bear in mind (this is a semiotics principle) is that any communication act has an intention; a purpose, has the function of conveing something. All things we say or signs we make to communicate tend to follow this rule. In other words, people always mean to say something. So here Knox's choice to write down that memory would be like saying: "I remember noticing Sollecito's hair had a blonde reflection. Maybe it was while he was preparing fish".
Does it make sense to chose that particular memory and image?
Is the choice completely random? (she could chose to say "I remember there was this program on tv; or I remember we listened to this song; or I remember we cooked a large cabbage": this could have an obvious function, she says that to demonstrate that she remembers details that might be verified and might make her look credible).
But she doesn't say something that has a function. Is it completely devoid of any function? Has no purpose and no logic? Or, what function of this message could be a logical one?

Yikes. The ONLY reason she thought of blood was because it was non-randomly associated with a murder investigation. Maybe if they were asking her about a fashion show she might have mentioned Raffaele's hair.

This is a perfect example of the betrayal of the interrogation and the arrest.

"Come on, talk to us about blood, talk to us about blood! Blame someone, accuse someone. We're begging you."

"Oooh, you talked about blood! You committed a murder! You blamed someone and accused someone! Burn, witch!"

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
What theory? I am only presenting verifiable facts. You on the other hand are either lying about your connections or are deliberately hiding facts such as the identity of the short fat perp with the camera

I skip the rest because I've already commented on it.
To this I say: no, you are presenting a theory. The theory is that what I wrote in a previous post was a series of lies - this is what you asseted - that was the post where I said why the theory of te prosecution leaking a photo to influence public opinion is nonsense, you stating that my post is false implies that you are asserting a theory about the prosecution manipulating the public opinion by leaking a photos on purpose to tthe Daily Mirror.
So, first thing, you are presenting a theory - foremost, prior to presenting facts - and it's time for you to aknwoledge it.

It's true you are also presenting a fact, you only have a fact. You have a photo of forensics. The photo is not blostering your theory. It is not a proof of anything.
Btw, about your photo, you may please notice (besides the rest of the information that you did not consider:
1. if you suggest the man is Mignini, you should know that, whenever the photo was taken, Mignini visited the the cottage only on Nov. 2., when there was no pink substance in the bathroom.
2. I don't know who the man is, but I can tell you Mignini is actually a very tall man, so he cannot appear as a "short" person among a group of average people. I remember when I met him in person I could assess he is surely above mt 1,85, but probably more.

An educated guess: the fat short man could be Domenico Giacinto Profazio, who is in fact a short weighty bold man with grey bear.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From Allan Jamieson

Professor Jamieson wrote, "This refers to the associated topic of continuity; can the provenance of the item be unambiguously and completely accounted by reliable contemporary documents. I emphasise contemporary because it is not, in my opinion, satisfactory to have someone produce a statement some time (especially years) after an event that says, “I did X”, or just as worrying, “It was the practice then to X”. I have been involved in a case where a police officer produced a statement 11 years after an event and perhaps not surprisingly got the date wrong and the exhibit label wrong, and also managed at the same time to add more information than was initially recorded."

He continued, "We recommend a thorough check of continuity and a check on the possibilities for contamination in many cases involving DNA. The same principle applies to all trace evidence such as hairs, paint and glass. I doubt whether it makes us many friends in the laboratories that we seek the data from..." link.

Stefanoni's errors with respect to the quantity of DNA supposedly culled from the knife are an example of what can go wrong without contemporary documentation. I don't want to hold Italy to a higher standard than the rest of the world with respect to DNA evidence. I do want Italy to hold to the same high standards to which the rest of the world adheres.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yikes. The ONLY reason she thought of blood was because it was non-randomly associated with a murder investigation. Maybe if they were asking her about a fashion show she might have mentioned Raffaele's hair.

By saying this, you basically admit that she knew she was placing evidence against Sollecito.

Btw they were not asking her about anything. She wrote a written memoir on her own initiative. And, on her own initiative, she placed evidence agaisnt Sollecito.
That was my question.
Thanks for answering the question.

This is a perfect example of the betrayal of the interrogation and the arrest.

"Come on, talk to us about blood, talk to us about blood! Blame someone, accuse someone. We're begging you."

They were not begging her when she wrote the handwritten note.
But I see that you seem to admit - you remark it again - that the apaprent function of the statement was to blame someone, to accuse someone.
Thank you for remarking again that this was the obvious content of her "bloody hands" memory.

"Oooh, you talked about blood! You committed a murder! You blamed someone and accused someone! Burn, witch!"

"Witch" is a term definitely over the top.
Yet, you were able to point out yourself immediately that the memory about blood on hands is immeditaly associated with committing a murder, given the context; you said "the only reason she thought of blood was because it was non-randomly associated with a murder investigation". I agree that was the precisely reason why she mentioned that 'memory' (and not others).
Because that memory had a peculiar value, a pecuilar meaning, a peculiar function and effect, within that peculiar context.

 

[Machiavelli]

Speaking of newspapers the Perugians will never read, here is a British paper reporting on what they got from the Italian papers, one month after the crime:

And this sort of thing went on for two more years before the decision of the first trial.

Just a moment. This is not a direct source: this is an article from the Independent. It is meant to be a "report of a report".
In other words you are again relying on what someone else is telling you about what the Italian press did and say. You are not reading the press your self.
You do't check if what the Independent writes is true or not. (this is the paper where Popham writes!)

You know, I find these citations interesting because these provide me an insight about the foreign media activity around the case, which isthe phenomenon I am interested into.

 

[Mary_H]

By saying this, you basically admit that she knew she was placing evidence against Sollecito.

Btw they were not asking her about anything. She wrote a written memoir on her own initiative. And, on her own initiative, she placed evidence agaisnt Sollecito.
That was my question.
Thanks for answering the question.

They were not begging her when she wrote the handwritten note.
But I see that you seem to admit - you remark it again - that the apaprent function of the statement was to blame someone, to accuse someone.
Thank you for remarking again that this was the obvious content of her "bloody hands" memory.

"Witch" is a term definitely over the top.
Yet, you were able to point out yourself immediately that the memory about blood on hands is immeditaly associated with committing a murder, given the context; you said "the only reason she thought of blood was because it was non-randomly associated with a murder investigation". I agree that was the precisely reason why she mentioned that 'memory' (and not others).
Because that memory had a peculiar value, a pecuilar meaning, a peculiar function and effect, within that peculiar context.

Precisely, and logically. She would not even have been at the Questura if they were not questioning her about the murder. Thoughts associated with the murder were being elicited by the power of suggestion, she was not going around thinking about them without any help.

I see this process of shifting responsibility onto weaker individuals over and over in this case. It's very sad how authoritarian cultures produce people with so little sense of personal responsibility.

 

[Mary_H]

Just a moment. This is not a direct source: this is an article from the Independent. It is meant to be a "report of a report".
In other words you are again relying on what someone else is telling you about what the Italian press did and say. You are not reading the press your self.
You do't check if what the Independent writes is true or not. (this is the paper where Popham writes!)

You know, I find these citations interesting because these provide me an insight about the foreign media activity around the case, which isthe phenomenon I am interested into.

Do you think The Independent was making it up? How about The Times and The Guardian? They all quoted and cited Italian media over and over.

Italians have the internet, too, I presume?

Candace cited many Italian articles in the process of writing her blog, as you know. Unfortunately at that time, there was often only a day to get the links before the Italian media removed them.