• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
yimyammer said:
I've heard the same description about those of us that think she's innocent with the additional adjectives retard, moron & liar.

pretty pointless noise from both sides, imo
Click to expand...

The people who say Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent,can put together a timeline that fits with the evidence as to how Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher. The people who believe in guilt can come up with no timeline that fits the evidence,if pressed on this point they often concede that maybe Amanda did not take part in the murder but she knows something,the DNA team that swept the murder scene and produced a video of what they thought was exemplary work,the pp that examined the computers one could go on for a long time,there is quite a bit of evidence that those who believe in guilt are not the brightest,
 
js202 said:
I almost always find you spot-on, LondonJohn, but I'm convinced the fat man is Mignini, for at least two reasons:

1) The fat man in the photo is clean-shaven, older and broader - in his corpulence - across the shoulders than Profazio.
2) Observe the body language of the persons behind the fat man. They are deferring to this figure; behaving as minions, essentially.
Click to expand...


Well, Profazio was Head of the local Flying Squad, so the point on perceived deference would still stand.

But you may be right - it may be Mignini. If so, I wonder when he really paid the cottage a cheeky visit or two....
 
Time perhaps to remind ourselves once again of the way in which the bra clasp was handled and collected by the "crack" forensic's team, after having been found lying under a blood-soiled rug amidst a pile of dusty debris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaTI0SiuLw

Note particularly the number of times (and the number of different individuals) the hooks of the bra clasp are touched by these goons as they pass the clasp round amongst themselves, before they inexplicably place it back on the dirty floor to photograph it!

I'd argue that this 2:40min of video disqualifies the bra clasp in and of itself.
 
Bill Williams said:
Machiavelli reacts violently when one points out.....

...... that Judge Massei's motivations report describes them as normal kids. The ONLY thing Massei describes about them that is remotely "abnormal" is what Massei alleges is a "brief choice for evil" on Nov 1. (...)
Click to expand...

"violently"... :rolleyes: I only reply to plain falsehoods.

You assert that Massei "found" that the two defendants (which btw he never calls 'kids' - and who are, in fact, not) do not suffer of any psychopatological condition.

This claim is simply false.

It is false that Massei ever made such finding.
 
js202 said:
I almost always find you spot-on, LondonJohn, but I'm convinced the fat man is Mignini, for at least two reasons:

1) The fat man in the photo is clean-shaven, older and broader - in his corpulence - across the shoulders than Profazio.
2) Observe the body language of the persons behind the fat man. They are deferring to this figure; behaving as minions, essentially.
Click to expand...


It's Mignini. 99.9' % certain.

He wouldn't have missed it for the World.
 
Machiavelli said:
"violently"... :rolleyes: I only reply to plain falsehoods.

You assert that Massei "found" that the two defendants (which btw he never calls 'kids' - and who are, in fact, not) do not suffer of any psychopatological condition.

This claim is simply false.

It is false that Massei ever made such finding.
Click to expand...

Maresca claimed last night on Porta a Porta that Amanda Knox's footprint was in the murder room,do you accept that claim is wrong and that Maresca is a liar
 
Machiavelli said:
"violently"... :rolleyes: I only reply to plain falsehoods.

You assert that Massei "found" that the two defendants (which btw he never calls 'kids' - and who are, in fact, not) do not suffer of any psychopatological condition.

This claim is simply false.

It is false that Massei ever made such finding.
Click to expand...

Welcome back, Machiavelli....

Someone over my shoulder just quipped......

"I imagine when Machiavelli's soccer (football) team is playing and the score ends up 1-nil for the other team, Machiavelli would say, 'The other team won."

"You'd say to Machiavelli - 'Oh, I see you admit your team lost!'"

"To which Machiavelli would say, 'Prove that I ever said my team lost!'"

I will let people read the Massei report for themselves, and they can come to their own conclusion. More important - the Nencini court can read the Massei decision for itself, too.

The fact is: the Mignini prosecution claimed that there was all sorts of psychopathology for Knox and Sollecito - Magna comics... etc., and Massei found them to be normal kids.

Welcome back, though, Mach 1. How's Andrea doing in Sicily covering the refugee tragedy? Is it true she lost interest in the case now that all the 3rd trial evidence has gone the defence's way, and Mignini's day of reckoning draws closer?

Do you and Mignini still regard the line in the sand to defend Mignini's Satanic rite theory?
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
"violently"... :rolleyes: I only reply to plain falsehoods.

You assert that Massei "found" that the two defendants (which btw he never calls 'kids' - and who are, in fact, not) do not suffer of any psychopatological condition.

This claim is simply false.

It is false that Massei ever made such finding.
Click to expand...

Is this going to end up being one of your semantics games?
 
Grinder said:
Sorry but I don't believe I said that but since this has been going round for so long... In fact I'll grant you that Mignini didn't say it "on the record."

What I said was that it really doesn't make a difference to me whether it was a satanic rite or ritual or just a rite or a sex game - I don't see evidence of any of them. Do you?
Click to expand...

I see evidence of a sexual violence; and I see evidence of multiple perpetrators; I also see evidence of Amanda Knox's involvement, and of Sollecito's.
I also see evidence that the crime was committed by someone under drug effect and that all three were on drugs that night.
I also see evidence that all three had contacts with drug dealers and had - each one in a different way - some issue regarding their sexual conduct. And also they had some relation with violence or violent fantasies and knifes.

Now what I did ask you to explain how completely disgraced judges' verdicts can stand. How can the judgment on calunnia be accepted when it is obvious to you and the ISC that Hellmann's court was not competent.
Click to expand...

This question makes sense.
In fact, out of my legal knowledge, I did expect the Supreme Court to crush the verdicts completely, but out of my logical sense, I did not expect them to accept the calunnia conviction (while only nullifying the lack of aggravating circumstance).
But, I acknowledge that the decision is sound and logical under a legal point of view. The technical reason in fact is that it does not rest strictly on Hellmann 'competence' (side observation: thecnically, in the legal lexicon, Hellmann's court was 'competent', because 'competent' in legalese means 'it has jurisdiction' on it). In fact, paradoxically, the calunnia conviction could be reviewed if it was proven that Hellmann was corrupt; in that case, the Supreme Court could declare their guilty verdict subject to review (they can't declare it null, but they could appoint another panel that would review the decision and may theoretically overturn it; as it happens in the US for case reviews too). But if Hellmann's decision was just wrongly motivated, well, here we come to the point of why the actual decision of the Supreme Court was sound and logical. Because the Supreme Court decides upon a recours, which consists in reasons and arguments, presented in written and oral form.
It does not rule on Hellmann's verdict. In fact, even Hellmann is itself an appeal court and Massei is the first instance convicting court; the calunnia is discussed by Hellmann court only on the defence's request, and it is discussed by the Supreme Court only on the defence recourse.
Thus, the Supreme Court does not rule directly on whether Hellmann court is good or bad, but on whether a party's reasons for compleint are good or bad.

The calunnia conviction stands not because Hellmann's court was "competent", but because the reasons provided by Ghirga-Dalla Vedova against the calunnia conviction were inconsistent. Devoid of merit, unfounded, inadmissible or wrong, anyway ineffective.
And indeed their reasons were flimsy and doomed, as I explained in my report about the High Court hearing.

Paradoxically, if Ghirga-Dalla Vedova argued on grounds of bias or suspicion of corruption of Hellmann, they might have won. I can't say that for sure but who knows.
 
Bill Williams said:
(...)
The fact is: the Mignini prosecution claimed that there was all sorts of psychopathology for Knox and Sollecito - Magna comics... etc., and Massei found them to be normal kids.

(...)
Click to expand...

It's false. This will remain a plain falsehood. Quite obvious actually (to anyone with little understanding of the law).
No matter how you attempt to repeat it.
False.
 
halides1 said:
From the Independent article by Mary Minihan previously cited, "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."" Translation: Amanda and Raffaele are brilliant when the storyline requires them to be clever, and they are idiots when the storyline requires them to be foolish. Even if the nonexistent psychological profile actually existed, it would constitute a serious breach of the principle that the authorities should stay essentially silent, sub judice. In the U.S. the prosecutor is supposed only to release a minimum of information and is cautioned against inflaming public opinion. My impression of British rules is that they are at least as strict, possibly stricter.
Click to expand...

This is an inaccurate report by the Independent.
It is not true that the prosecutors produced a psychological profile of Amanda Knox.
What the journalist mistakes for a "psychological profile of Amanda Knox produced by the prosecutors", is in fact the Matteini report.
The journalist is quoting the Matteini ruling, but she erroneously calls it "a psychological profile produced by the prosecution".
Which in fact is not a psychological report (o is not supposed to be such); it is not produced by the prosecution, but by the investigating judge. And above all, it is basically public. It is open to parties and dissemination, and anyone may read it.
There is no rule that the investigating judge should remain silent. These things are public under the current status of the Italian law. The system is transparent. Of course, this has side effects. You can't have transparency and privacy at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
It's false. This will remain a plain falsehood. Quite obvious actually (to anyone with little understanding of the law).
No matter how you attempt to repeat it.
False.
Click to expand...

While you're at it, can you post the text of Mignini's stuff which "proves" he did not have a Satanic rite theory....

You say you have it, and the mystifying thing is that this is your big chance!!!

Mostly, you just declare stuff "False" with no back up. With the Satanic rite theory, you claim to actually have the data!

On another matter - I sincerely hope you reconsider about dinner. Your offer of the wines in your basement is intriguing.
 
When I look at that picture what I see is pink. I get nosebleeds, I know what blood spilled on bathroom fixtures looks like.

Blood is bright red. When it has been there awhile its dark red, and its opaque.
If someone tells you that pink stuff is blood and you believe him, you are stupid.
 
davefoc said:
Machiavelli,

  1. Can you identify the guy in the mask taking pictures in the image that has been posted several times lately?
  2. Would you identify him if you could?
  3. Do you know what happened to his pictures?
  4. Were any or all of them turned over to the defense in the discovery process?
  5. Do you think the pictures the guy was taking were the ones sold to the British tabloids?
  6. Could you tell us about the police investigation to determine what the source of the photographs sold to the British tabloids was?
  7. Has Mignini ever publically denied that he took the pictures or made a statement about what happened to the pictures taken by the big fat guy at the crime scene investigation?

For the record, while I appreciate the tentative credit Kaosium gave me for finding out that the copyright was owned by Profazio, I don't think I deserved the credit I did look into this issue when it was discussed a year or so ago and all I could find was that the copyright was owned by a company that I don't recall the name of right now. Finding out that Profazio held the copyright sounds like another piece of nice research by LJ.

It looked like such an obvious breech of Italian law that photographs were taken by presumably a state employee at a crime scene and sold to the media that I had assumed there would have been an investigation into it unless the perpetrator was a member of a protected class of law enforcement. There didn't seem to be an investigation so my guess was that the photographer and seller of the copyright was Mignini. However, it is just as believable that the perpetrator was a highly placed employee of the Perugian Police department assuming he was a big fat guy.
Click to expand...

Actually, the copyright of the photo was owned by a photo/media agency (was it barcroft media?). It was not a photo, but a set of photos.

Can you attribute the selling of the photos directly to the photographer?
Actually, I think we can't. The photos in the set in fact did belong to the investigation file. Is it possible that someone at the police office put their hands on the file and sold the photo set? It is obviously theoretically possible. But even someone who was not a police officer could have done so. (I'm not kidding; I'm saying even a person who is not a police officer coud have well sold the photos; in fact, Sollecito's father did sell crime videos to Telenorba, for instance).
As for my direct experience, police officers often take pictures on mini-cameras (as non-expert photographers) and they put them in their reports (even in internal reports, or to other departments or other offices).
And lawyers from all parties in a case can, in fact, require to access police archives and access most reports and documantation (including photos).
I know this because I did so, I sent a lawyer to access police reports about car accidents, at the Carabinieri station, reports which included pictures that were not deposited at the court clerk's office.

This said, to your questions, my answers are:

1) I can't recognize the man for positive identification; the picture is useful to me only as "negative comparison" :) aka to rule out someone. I can rule out Mignini, because the real Mignini is really too tall to be that guy (and actually, the real Mignini is not that fat).
When I say Mignini is tall, I mean really tall. Had you ever met him in person, you won't confuse him with that guy.
2) Yes I would idenify him if I could. But I cannot say anything more than something like "probable" identity" (given the context) with Profazio, and "incompatible" with Mignini.
3) No I do't know what happend to his pictures but I guess they ended up attached in some "informativa" (report), as I explained. There, someone (I guess lawyers from one of the numerous party as most likely) picked them and leaked them (maybe to a journalist). Then maybe the journalist sold them to an agency. They ended in Barcroft media agency. They were leased to the Daily Mail (a paper which "re-writes" and apparently misreports, as someone may point out) who chose the bathroom picture.
4) I have no idea about where, what files, specific pictures were deposited. But the concept of "turned over" may be misleading. The fact that a file exists in one of the files and is not deposited at the court file, it does not mean the defence or parties cannot access it on request.
5) No. I don't think the person who took the pictures was the one who sold them. Even less that he/she sold them directly to a British tabloid.
6) There is no police investigation to determine how the photo made its way to a newspaper, as far as I know, and I can tell there will be no investigation ever. This is a non-issue to Italians and Italian law. Nobody care about these things; while the Italian law does not prevent just any person to leake those pictures to the press. It is not illegal for a lawyer to access a police file, and it is not illegal for some private citizen to give the pictures to someone else. What the Daily Mail did, moreover, was off the Italian jurisdiction and anyway was not an object of any formal complain. There is actually nothing illegal to investigate.
7) Mignini has never spoken about the issue of the bloody bathroom picture, as far as I know. I won't even bet he knows the issue exists, as a discussion topic somewhere.
 
Last edited:
"This is the DailyMail; doesn't look like an Italian press source."
Yes, that is definately the DailyMail.
Of course the Daily Mail is a British tabloid that is produced in a sheltered workshop for the developmentally disabled.
The budget of the daily mail is not large enough that they can afford to send a reporter to Perugia and have him stay in a hotel. They get stories emailed to them from free-lance "journalists" who are in Perugia. They will get more than one story and they buy the one they like most. Sometimes the writer has to bend the truth a bit to make his story more interesting than that of the guys he is competing with.
Look its not like The New York Times, if a story is true enough they will print it.
I hope it gets thru this time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom