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

[Bill Williams]

I think it is a fair request of you to produce Italian sources for the satanic remark, since you think it is so darn important.

As long as you accept Barbie Nadeau as an "Italian source"... it's in her book.

Next will be a request to show it as an Italian source printed in "Times New Roman" font.

The import of this is Machiavelli, and just lately Mignini himself, drawing a line in the sand that he did not say it.

What becomes important is that Machiavelli has virtually called Barbie Nadeau a liar... so the issue is not what Mignini did or did not say 4 years ago, it is what they are saying in 2013 and why. It is clear to me, but your mileage may vary, that as the Nencini/Florence course unravels in favour of the two accused, people on the other side of the fence are going to start throwing each other under buses, trying to be the last person standing.

For me this has never been about 2007/8. This is about 2013 and why out of all the issues this silly prosecution has raised, why the "Satanic Ritual" motive is the one chosen as the line in the sand about which Mignini cannot admit - repeat: in 2013!

Mignini and or Machiavelli could end this right now by what in Watergate terms was called a "limited hangout." Machiavelli, at least, will not do that. He keeps putting more narrow conditions on the evidence he requires.... to win an argument on a very obscure webpage against an even more obscure poster - me.

Fact is that ALL the reporters at the time were writing about it - save perhaps for those who appreciated more than any the power of Italian defamation laws and who gets to lay charges... the Italian press and PMs in that order.

And to top it all off, Machiavelli claims to himself have the transcripts to prove me, an obscure poster, wrong. And in this back and forth ("You prove it!", "No, you prove it!") he has the ability to end this, and he could have ended the discussion about Satanic rite years ago. He claims to have the bleach receipts the transcript to prove his side.

Ask yourself this question - why now? Why does Mignini feel a need to defend himself from this in 2013 if it is such a lame, obviously wrong allegation?

 

[RoseMontague]

Ask yourself this question - why now? Why does Mignini feel a need to defend himself from this in 2013 if it is such a lame, obviously wrong allegation?

He wants to pretend to be a victim of malicious slander. From Spezi, Amanda, and Raffaele. He is seeking justification through court proceedings against them. Poor Mignini. Everybody talks bad about him. He probably loses sleep at night or something.

 

[katy_did]

One of the planks in the PG arguments against DNA contamination is the supposed six-day gap in testing. Let us take as a given that the gap was real. There are several reasons why this gap does not preclude DNA contamination. One, there was a one-day gap in the Farah Jama case and a two-day gap in the Jaidyn Leskie case, yet there was still contamination in both instances. What is so magical about six days? Two, DNA can be found on forensic tools such as fingerprint brushes, and there is no reason to believe that this DNA won't persist unless the tool is cleaned properly (I can think of no reason to believe that the Rome lab has a clue about how to clean its tools). Three, Meredith reference profile was run prior to the six-day gap, from what I have been able to gather. That should have been the last item run, because it was abundant DNA. In response to a question of mine Professor Dan Krane replied, “Was Meredith's DNA processed in the lab before the knife? If so, then I don't accept that six days is sufficient to exclude contamination in the lab. That would just be bad practice, plain and simple." Dr. Theodore Kessis wrote (p. 9), “It must be noted however that contamination errors have been documented where no direct processing link between sample and contaminant have been established, raising the specter that a source of contamination can linger in a laboratory for some time.”

Re: the six day gap Chris, in one of the studies you mention over at IIP - Poy & Van Oorschot - DNA was found on a magnifying lamp which came from a sample examined three months earlier. So six days doesn't seem like it would be enough to rule out contamination, at least if the DNA were transferred to something which isn't regularly cleaned or cleaned properly.

 

[xinonix]

OMG Rose! you are so beautiful. I would think there would be so many guys who want to date you, you wouldn't have any free time left to spend in this forum!

 

[Dan O.]

If, as I imagine this process to work, some lawyer went and looked at the "file" maintained in the courthouse, then they are not going to come away with a publication-worthy copy of this photograph. My guess is that the newspaper photograph is generated from an electronic file, which suggests to me that the "leaked" photo originated from the guy who took it.

That's a fine point. The pink bathroom photo came out on January 15, 2008. The prosecution didn't wrap up their case and release the evidence file to the defense until June 19, 2008. Frank wrote on that date:

So the cards are on the table now. It's a vast production, 12 packs of paper + many DVDs and CDs. The estimated cost of the rights to have them is of nearly 50,000 euro. And the defense teams of Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda will begin to examine them tomorrow.​

Who doesn't remember that first crime scene photo to leak out? It was a grainy black and white image that could have been a photo copy of a fax. We can compare this to the photos in the evidence file and see that it is exactly a representation of dec_0109 from the case file. Were the images themselves even in the accessible case file?


And let's not forget Amanda's diary that was confiscated from her prison cell by the police on November 29th and quotes from that diary showed up in the Italian press on the 30th. There too the excuse was that the press were able to access the diary from the case file. Well, let's see the case file access logs.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think anything bothers me more than how people like Machiavelli and others have used the sexual nature of this murder as an excuse to tie normal sexual exploration as something deviant and perverse. We've seen the prosecution, Machiavelli and others demonize Amanda and Raffaele and call them freaks. Even if Amanda and Raffaele were interested in group sex and there is no evidence that they were, there is no link between that behavior and violence or murders.

So Amanda and Raffaele not only have to defend against the murder charge, they are forced to deal the prudish jerks who are calling them freaks.

My point is that even though a large portion of society believes that anything outside missionary sex between a man and a woman is strange, there is no link between sexual exploration, group sex, homosexual activities, etc, etc, etc, and violence. Violent behavior occurs throughout sexual norms and morays. So while painting Amanda and Raffaele as something outside the norm sexually, (even though they really are not) does NOT mean that they are inclined to threaten someone with a knife or kill them.

Violent people are violent people. PERIOD. regardless of their sexual proclivities and interests. And the real truth is that Amanda and Raffaele have shown ZERO inclination in their entire lives to be violent. The rest of this is just malicious narrow minded sensationalism.

 

[acbytesla]

Can you admit that Dempsey is a liar? She just wrote that the DNA on the knife turned out to be starch. No matter what your allies here say, no one expert has ever said that the Meredith DNA on the knife was starch. Contamination, yes.

Seriously Grinder? You are back on this one? Dempsey's point is NOT a lie. It may not be as precise as you would like, but it is definitely not a lie. Dempsey's main point is right on. There is no DNA of Meredith's on the blade of that knife. And they did find starch on that blade. You're nitpicking. Dempsey is not deliberately obfuscating the salient facts. On the other hand, Barbie and Andrea are.

 

[xinonix]

I recently made a post here about how the Italians were so mad at AK+RS for the things they said in their books that they took back the acquittal they had given them..
I was informed that they took back the acquital before the books went on sale.
You guys are so clever and well informed.
Can anyone tell me what day the acquittal was taken back, and what day they had planned to put the books on sale, but the publisher had to wait 2 months because the books were involved in legal procedings.
I read somewhere that a publisher will mail a few copies of a book to certain people before it goes on sale. Therefore the contents of a book are no longer a secret on the day the book goes on sale.
Do any of you guys know anything about the date these pre-release copies where mailed.

 

[xinonix]

The DNA on the kitchen knife or the bra clasp does not prove anything.
Even if the tests did prove it was from Amanda or Raffale.
Meredith could have a rendez-vous with Raffale at his place and done something unmentionable.
Perhaps the knife had fallen on the floor and Raffale had not gotten round to pick it up yet. Rafale's DNA could have gotten on the clasp when Raffale was helping her remove her bra. She may have stepped on the knife while she was naked. There is an awful lot of dead skin on the bottom of a foot. Therefore DNA on that knife or the clasp does'nt prove anything.
Do you think My theory is BS? Well what is more believable? my theory or all 4 of them were playing a sex game and somehow Meredith winds up with a dozen accidental stab wounds?

 

[Machiavelli]

Spezi seems a bit more sure of his Catholic group connections...(Google translation)

Yes but Spezi states that Perugia lies in the Tuscan hills.... that Umbria is the only Italian region that does not border the sea... that Mignini was the prosecutor of the Monster of Florence case...

 

[acbytesla]

I recently made a post here about how the Italians were so mad at AK+RS for the things they said in their books that they took back the acquittal they had given them..
I was informed that they took back the acquital before the books went on sale.
You guys are so clever and well informed.
Can anyone tell me what day the acquittal was taken back, and what day they had planned to put the books on sale, but the publisher had to wait 2 months because the books were involved in legal procedings.
I read somewhere that a publisher will mail a few copies of a book to certain people before it goes on sale. Therefore the contents of a book are no longer a secret on the day the book goes on sale.
Do any of you guys know anything about the date these pre-release copies where mailed.

I'm not sure when the pre-release copies were sent out, but Raffaele's book was released to the public in September of 2012. Amanda's book was released I think April 30. The acquittal was reversed March 26. The motivation for their decision was released in June.

 

[Machiavelli]

He wants to pretend to be a victim of malicious slander. From Spezi, Amanda, and Raffaele. He is seeking justification through court proceedings against them. Poor Mignini. Everybody talks bad about him. He probably loses sleep at night or something.

Spezi placed false evidence against an innocent person, and the innocent person is not Mignini.
Spezi did this and other crimes long before Mignini investigated or prosecuted him, and before he started to maliciously slander Mignini.

 

[Machiavelli]

"likely" must have a different meaning in Italian. Machiavelli is choosing to believe the scenario that best protects Mignini and the police without offering any evidence to support this choice while the evidence that has been presented clearly points to scenario #1.


And here Machiavelli starts his reconstruction with a fabrication or outright lie. If the photo was in the police file, the lawyers would all have them and thus we would have seen them. (...)

Absolutely false. As I have explained - albeit you decide to reject the explanation, because it's not favourable to your conclusion - the truth you are not necessarily expected to see the police files; not even the lawyers are expected to see all the files (unless they rquest them; for example, negative controls, raw data etc.); not even the courts are expected to see all the files.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fact is that ALL the reporters at the time were writing about it - save perhaps for those who appreciated more than any the power of Italian defamation laws and who gets to lay charges... the Italian press and PMs in that order.

(...)

It's false. Quote these "all" Italian reporters speaking about it. Come on.

 

[Bill Williams]

The DNA on the kitchen knife or the bra clasp does not prove anything.
Even if the tests did prove it was from Amanda or Raffale.
Meredith could have a rendez-vous with Raffale at his place and done something unmentionable.
Perhaps the knife had fallen on the floor and Raffale had not gotten round to pick it up yet. Rafale's DNA could have gotten on the clasp when Raffale was helping her remove her bra. She may have stepped on the knife while she was naked. There is an awful lot of dead skin on the bottom of a foot. Therefore DNA on that knife or the clasp does'nt prove anything.
Do you think My theory is BS? Well what is more believable? my theory or all 4 of them were playing a sex game and somehow Meredith winds up with a dozen accidental stab wounds?

The compelling issue is that there is no blood from Meredith on that bit of evidence. In lieu of blood, some other Meredith-source has to be the result of contamination.... because there is no known mechanism by which blood-forensics would not survive, while non-blood forensics would - other than contamination.

 

[acbytesla]

The DNA on the kitchen knife or the bra clasp does not prove anything.
Even if the tests did prove it was from Amanda or Raffale.
Meredith could have a rendez-vous with Raffale at his place and done something unmentionable.
Perhaps the knife had fallen on the floor and Raffale had not gotten round to pick it up yet. Rafale's DNA could have gotten on the clasp when Raffale was helping her remove her bra. She may have stepped on the knife while she was naked. There is an awful lot of dead skin on the bottom of a foot. Therefore DNA on that knife or the clasp does'nt prove anything.
Do you think My theory is BS? Well what is more believable? my theory or all 4 of them were playing a sex game and somehow Meredith winds up with a dozen accidental stab wounds?

I'd say the sex game theory is slightly more believable than your theory. But only slightly.

Both are extremely unreasonable.

You can theorize anything xinonix. The knife, a common kitchen cooking knife collected from Raffaele's cutlery drawer at his flat. There is no reason to believe that knife spent a second on any floor.

The bra clasp is the most problematic to Amanda and Raffaele of any evidence. But of course the collection methods, the actual profile found, the lack of confirmation and Stefanoni's refusal to provide the EDF files should make anyone hesitant to accept that as credible evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ask yourself this question - why now? Why does Mignini feel a need to defend himself from this in 2013 if it is such a lame, obviously wrong allegation?

He wants to pretend to be a victim of malicious slander. From Spezi, Amanda, and Raffaele. He is seeking justification through court proceedings against them. Poor Mignini. Everybody talks bad about him. He probably loses sleep at night or something.

You`re on to it, Rose.

They keep saying, "Show the proof that back in 2008 Mignini claimed this?" all the while when every reporter I know of reported he'd said this horrible event was the result of some sort of Satanic Rite.

But that's not the issue here, is it? Why is it in 2013 Mignini writes a letter to the editor - while a trial is still in progress!!!!!! - denying something that is not even before the trial - the Satanic Rite theory of this murder; one that even John Kercher writes about and concedes is "controversial"?

Why are we even talking about it, and why is Machiavelli drawing a line in the sand - all the while claiming to have transcripts which disprove it - and then Machiavelli simply fails to disprove it.

There has to be something behind the scenes which is current which is causing Mignini grief. One can speculate.... but the intriguing thing about this has nothing to do with 2008, it has to do with 2013.

Why doesn't Machiavelli end this by producing the transcripts he says he has? Why did not Mignini end this in 2008 by saying way back then "Look, I briefly entertained the notion of a Satanic rite, but almost immediately got new information and dropped it...."?

THEN, in 2013 he could tell the likes of me, an obscure blogger, "Are you still on about that?"

But that's not what is happening in 2013. In 2013 we get passionate, line in the sand defences saying, "I never said it, prove I said it!"

Well.... Barbie Nadeau seems to think he said it, John Kercher seems to think he said it.

Machiavelli - is John Kercher a liar, too? (will this question need to be asked 11 times to get a reply?)

 

[acbytesla]

You`re on to it, Rose.

They keep saying, "Show the proof that back in 2008 Mignini claimed this?" all the while when every reporter I know of reported he'd said this horrible event was the result of some sort of Satanic Rite.

But that's not the issue here, is it? Why is it in 2013 Mignini writes a letter to the editor - while a trial is still in progress!!!!!! - denying something that is not even before the trial - the Satanic Rite theory of this murder; one that even John Kercher writes about and concedes is "controversial"?

Why are we even talking about it, and why is Machiavelli drawing a line in the sand - all the while claiming to have transcripts which disprove it - and then Machiavelli simply fails to disprove it.

There has to be something behind the scenes which is current which is causing Mignini grief. One can speculate.... but the intriguing thing about this has nothing to do with 2008, it has to do with 2013.

Why doesn't Machiavelli end this by producing the transcripts he says he has? Why did not Mignini end this in 2008 by saying way back then "Look, I briefly entertained the notion of a Satanic rite, but almost immediately got new information and dropped it...."?

THEN, in 2013 he could tell the likes of me, an obscure blogger, "Are you still on about that?"

But that's not what is happening in 2013. In 2013 we get passionate, line in the sand defences saying, "I never said it, prove I said it!"

Well.... Barbie Nadeau seems to think he said it, John Kercher seems to think he said it.

Machiavelli - is John Kercher a liar, too? (will this question need to be asked 11 times to get a reply?)

What is more curious, is that if it is actually false, Mignini would be taking legal action. He hasn't hesitated to use it in the past, so why not now, if it is truly a lie?

I think the combination of what happened in the MOF case and this case has caused a lot of people to roll their eyes and not take Mignini seriously. And that troubles him.

 

[Machiavelli]

Personally, I don't think Mignini's that big a prude. He obviously gets off on thoughts of girl-on-girl sex and group sex, both of which I personally find pretty far out (I am no RWVBWL). Even if those were my fantasies, I would never reveal them in public by projecting them onto other people as he did. Either he is completely oblivious to his preferences, or he thinks they are no big deal. He may have reason to believe that those particular sexual activities are common. (...)

In fact, sometimes - maybe involuntarily - you spot on some obvious aspects, even about Mignini's personality. Mignini, is not at all prude nor ashamed of talking about sexual practices. He considers all that normal. Mignini appears to be indifferent to all this.
Actually - this will sound to you as a gossip - Mignini always stressed that Meredith was "shy" and "extremely reserved", that she was the one who disdained sexual promisquity and had affection only to her boyfriend, but at the Hellmann appeal Mignini he even called Meredith "puritan". Implies somehow she was the one that could be annoyed by expression of sexuality. He never attributed any obvious clear quality of "positive" about Meredith's attitude nor of "negative" to other's behaviours.

There might be something of a the cultural misunderstanding or projections about Italians on the part of Americans about this.

And btw I am very astonished that acbytesla completely overturns the meaning of what I wrote - I clearly wrote that no sexual behavior nor preference is an issue, as long as one enjoys it or doesn't take people into troubles. For some reason acbytesla decides to completely reverse the meaning of this, and asserts that I consider sexual exploration as negative and perverse.

What I think is that the actual average opinion of Italians (or even Catholics) about Saxon Americans - and, I can tell that's Mignini's opinion too - is that Americans have sexuophobic attitudes. In general, also the British are perceived as typically more "prude" people by Italians.

At the trial for the Melania Rea murder case, the court and the public were shown webcam videos recordings where Parolisi and his lover showed themselves their private parts and masturbated on cam. The sexual life of Parolisi and several of his women was on show just as evidence that the impossibility to manage his cheatings was the motive of the murder, and that for journalists an public was normal. This is what the courts are shown as evidence in Italian trials.

The open expression of obscenity is deeply rooted in the Italian culture. Since the time of the obscene graffiti still readable on the Pompei walls, the porn comedy shows by Plautus or the reinassance time when even the Sistine chapel was filled with paintings of nudes, only the Catholic Counter-Reform attempted to quench this reality, but it was an artificial act of imperium. The culture kept on shining through many things like the language a colloqualism (can't imagine for example Neapolitan colloquialism giving up porn and obscenity).

The sexual aspects of Amanda Knox's behaviour are the less relevant to Italians. They couldn't care less about it. Sollecito's factination with fantasy and violence is a bit more worrysome but it's about personality and we are in the context of a murder, it's just about looking whetnehr there are aspects of personality that are compatible with a sexual violence scenario.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not sure if the reference came from Pacelli or another but I think the translated "she devil" came from him (Pacelli) and not Mignini.

Yes it was from Pacelli, and it was "luciferina" ("diabolical?").
But it was at the closure of the first instance trial, in 2009, thus much later. It seems like the allegation here is that Mignini would have brought up Satanism in at the 2008 preliminary hearing, then he allegedly dropped it before Micheli's decision.