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

[Machiavelli]

You are suggesting that any given police officer or investigator would look at the evidence from the scene of this crime and reach a conclusion that is about a million times less likely than the obvious conclusion. Sorry, nobody but someone with a vivid imagination influenced by sexual arousal in response to the scene and the various individuals he is dealing with would reach the conclusions that were reached in this case.

Like you, Mignini wanted the kids to be guilty, so he went hunting for anything that would support his speculation. If he were looking for something to support a speculation they were great athletes, he would have found that, too. It's a very simple process.

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediatly a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

 

[Kaosium]

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

Why hello, Machiavelli! It must get old defending Mignini from charges he theorized about satanism, or ritualistic comic sex games, or demonic bathroom fixtures or whatever.

I have something new for you! Why don't you look up Associazione legittimista Trono e Altare, wait, let me link their site! I certainly wouldn't want you to miss out on this! I have to read the google translate version, I'm sure some of the nuances are lost, and I wouldn't want you to lose any nuances of this...revelation!

Help me out here, I think I read where they want to put a German on your 'throne.' Did I read that right? What century is he living in? I ask because he's listed on this page:

And Italian: in addition to these, and many others, which we apologize if you do not name them, the important minister of Perugia Giuliano Mignini,

Attending a function for the long-dead Charles VII, which at first I thought must be France's Charles VII. If you like Shakespeare he's the Dauphin in "Henry V" (that story ended badly for him!) and if you like toasting young ladies he's the one that let Joan of Arc burn. (thought I had a match!)

But I guess not, it was Charles VII of Spain. Or, more accurately, Charles III of Spain and Charles VII of Naples.

Huh.

Just who attends a service for a long-dead king in the company of those who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are legitimate, rails against the Bavarian Illuminati and Adam Weishaupt (when you see a dollar bill do you see Adam or George--how about him? ) and wants to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire and put a Bourbon back on the throne of France?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

With all due respect Mach, you are totally distorting Mignini and the court.
The simple fact that Mignini tried to create this non]existent contrast that Meredith was some kind of Madonna and Amanda as some kind of whore proves it. Meredith and Amanda's sexual history is totally irrelevant to this case. Neither are outside the norm of 20 year old women/girls.

Yet Mignini did everything he could to "slut shame" Amanda. Portray her as sexual deviant capable of anything. How many times did Mignini refer to Amanda as a she devil? Countless.

But beyond Mignini, is Italy's obsession that teenage sexual exploration had anything to do with this murder. I can't believe that the ISC decided to resurrect the sex game gone awry theory.

Frankly, many Americans are prudish and puritanical. But then again Americans are also portrayed as wanton. It really depends on where you live in the US. There is a big difference between San Francisco and say somewhere in the buckle of the Bible belt. Italy also has that Yin and Yang with Dolce Vita and the Catholic Church.

If I mistakenly said that you specifically was a prude, please forgive me. But I do believe that Amanda and Raffaele were persecuted by sexual prudishness.

 

[Samson]

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediatly a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

There are other things that are absolutely obvious from the crime scene, the indisputable evidence of the break in, that the rock was thrown from the car park. This is absolutely obvious from the glass distribution, the damage to the hard wood inner shutter, the fact that a piece of glass is embedded, which requires a fast horizontal throw from outside. What is even more obvious is that this would never be done at midnight with a dead body inside, as there would be very very significant risk of investigation by neighbours and so on, due to the unholy racket.
It is also extremely obvious that the post mortem can not allow for a time of death beyond 10 pm. If you want obvious, these are things I see, as they are visible, and preserved. Your multiple perpetrators are not, irrespective of probabilities. Considering it is obvious that the rock was thrown before the murder, is there a narrative that still has multiple perpetrators assembling?
You were farsighted and accurate on the ISC ruling, and as seemingly the only Italian currently posting here, can you see a possibility that judge Nencini will convict after disallowing many defence requests that were aimed at establishing at the very least, reasonable doubt. Do you see it as rational and safe to convict after refusing to admit these things?
Do you support the legal fact that Guede is never required to answer questions as a witness, or do you believe it would be a superior system if he was obligated to attempt to answer defence questions on the stand as to exactly what happened that evening, especially when considering he is by far the most important witness at this murder trial?

 

[RoseMontague]

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...

So is Mignini a member of those two groups or not? It sounds like they are on a website that he is using as a source. Are these websites wrong?

Mignini said they were having a riti fun party with drugs (no evidence) fueled by manga comics in some type of sex game (again no evidence of more than Guede involved). He is wrong. He just made it up. So I guess he is wrong about everything else he ever said.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediatly a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

You have been invited many times to present your reconstruction of what happened, mapped to the details shown in the crime scene photos. Show us how these multiple perpetrators were positioned relative to the victim, what their actions were, and the sequence in which everything occurred.

We can do that with the single-perp reconstruction. We have it nailed. But we don't have anything to compare it against, because nobody on your side has ever tried to develop a point-by-point reconstruction that matches the physical evidence. So let's see what you can come up with.

 

[RoseMontague]

Why hello, Machiavelli! It must get old defending Mignini from charges he theorized about satanism, or ritualistic comic sex games, or demonic bathroom fixtures or whatever.

I have something new for you! Why don't you look up Associazione legittimista Trono e Altare, wait, let me link their site! I certainly wouldn't want you to miss out on this! I have to read the google translate version, I'm sure some of the nuances are lost, and I wouldn't want you to lose any nuances of this...revelation!

Help me out here, I think I read where they want to put a German on your 'throne.' Did I read that right? What century is he living in? I ask because he's listed on this page:



Attending a function for the long-dead Charles VII, which at first I thought must be France's Charles VII. If you like Shakespeare he's the Dauphin in "Henry V" (that story ended badly for him!) and if you like toasting young ladies he's the one that let Joan of Arc burn. (thought I had a match!)

But I guess not, it was Charles VII of Spain. Or, more accurately, Charles III of Spain and Charles VII of Naples.

Huh.

Just who attends a service for a long-dead king in the company of those who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are legitimate, rails against the Bavarian Illuminati and Adam Weishaupt (when you see a dollar bill do you see Adam or George--how about him? ) and wants to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire and put a Bourbon back on the throne of France?

Yep. Go Spezi. And go Kaosium. Yay!

 

[christianahannah]

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.

I was fairly certain that Mignini didn't refer to Amanda as she-devil. I think the word "she-devil" may have come from google translate.

I have not ever had the opinion that Mignini was sensational in his prosecution of the Kercher murder (I cannot say the same for all the attorneys involved). And translations of articles, documents and court transcripts from Italian to English and reverse are dependent on who and what does the translations as for their accuracy and cultural influences.

As far as when Mignini was a satanist along with his second job of taking photos and selling them underground to newspapers, and any other negative image that can be applied to him, maybe that can be found in Micheli's decision using google translate?

But really, Mignini can only be blamed for so much (without adequate documentation) before one begins to wonder why and to question the motives of those making the allegations.

 

[Antony]

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?

Sorry that is BS, but no more so than the prosecution's claims that the DNA on the items relates to the murder.

The fact (AIUI) is that Meredith was never in Raff's flat, and the knife was certainly never taken out of the flat - but Amanda and Meredith were very close, and she could easily have had Meredith's DNA on her hands or clothes before coming to Raff's flat and transferred them to the blade. Similarly, Raff was at the girls' cottage more than once and there are several ways that his DNA could have been picked up on Meredith's clothes including the bra clasp.

The truth is that the DNA results on these 2 items wouldn't mean anything even if they were genuine. But the circumstances in which they were collected and tested give a bucket of reasons for believing that they are not genuine at all.

 

[acbytesla]

There are other things that are absolutely obvious from the crime scene, the indisputable evidence of the break in, that the rock was thrown from the car park. This is absolutely obvious from the glass distribution, the damage to the hard wood inner shutter, the fact that a piece of glass is embedded, which requires a fast horizontal throw from outside. What is even more obvious is that this would never be done at midnight with a dead body inside, as there would be very very significant risk of investigation by neighbours and so on, due to the unholy racket.
It is also extremely obvious that the post mortem can not allow for a time of death beyond 10 pm. If you want obvious, these are things I see, as they are visible, and preserved. Your multiple perpetrators are not, irrespective of probabilities. Considering it is obvious that the rock was thrown before the murder, is there a narrative that still has multiple perpetrators assembling?
You were farsighted and accurate on the ISC ruling, and as seemingly the only Italian currently posting here, can you see a possibility that judge Nencini will convict after disallowing many defence requests that were aimed at establishing at the very least, reasonable doubt. Do you see it as rational and safe to convict after refusing to admit these things?
Do you support the legal fact that Guede is never required to answer questions as a witness, or do you believe it would be a superior system if he was obligated to attempt to answer defence questions on the stand as to exactly what happened that evening, especially when considering he is by far the most important witness at this murder trial?

Actually, I don't think the rock was thrown from the car park. I think it was thrown from down below. I think the chip out of the inside shutter leads me to believe that. However, if the inside shutter was closed, than it could have been thrown from the car park.

 

[RoseMontague]

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediatly a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

You have been invited many times to present your reconstruction of what happened, mapped to the details shown in the crime scene photos. Show us how these multiple perpetrators were positioned relative to the victim, what their actions were, and the sequence in which everything occurred.

We can do that with the single-perp reconstruction. We have it nailed. But we don't have anything to compare it against, because nobody on your side has ever tried to develop a point-by-point reconstruction that matches the physical evidence. So let's see what you can come up with.

It's a pretty amazing and astounding claim is it not. I am in awe of his expertise, in just about anything and on almost every subject. To reconstruct the crime and the clean up from just walking into the room. Immediately even, like he didn't even have to ponder it.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I was fairly certain that Mignini didn't refer to Amanda as she-devil. I think the word "she-devil" may have come from google translate.

I have not ever had the opinion that Mignini was sensational in his prosecution of the Kercher murder (I cannot say the same for all the attorneys involved). And translations of articles, documents and court transcripts from Italian to English and reverse are dependent on who and what does the translations as for their accuracy and cultural influences.

As far as when Mignini was a satanist along with his second job of taking photos and selling them underground to newspapers, and any other negative image that can be applied to him, maybe that can be found in Micheli's decision using google translate?

But really, Mignini can only be blamed for so much (without adequate documentation) before one begins to wonder why and to question the motives of those making the allegations.

My guess is Lucifer in English is the same as the Italian here. The ina probably indicates gender like femmina. She-Devil is probably pretty close.

I have more Spezi quotes, sorry.

 

[Samson]

Actually, I don't think the rock was thrown from the car park. I think it was thrown from down below. I think the chip out of the inside shutter leads me to believe that. However, if the inside shutter was closed, than it could have been thrown from the car park.

I am just agreeing with Ron Hendry because he did the work, and it accords with all the photographs. The reason I believe it was from the car park is that I can conceive no way the velocity could be achieved by a lob from below, to get the glass stuck in the shutter. And following from this is the implausibility of staging with a dead body inside. Still, I guess everyone attributes different importance to the evidence. I have always believed this to completely preclude the staging, and thus involvement of any kind.

 

[acbytesla]

My guess is Lucifer in English is the same as the Italian here. The ina probably indicates gender like femmina. She-Devil is probably pretty close.

Yep Rose, It's very close.

 

[acbytesla]

I am just agreeing with Ron Hendry because he did the work, and it accords with all the photographs. The reason I believe it was from the car park is that I can conceive no way the velocity could be achieved by a lob from below, to get the glass stuck in the shutter. And following from this is the implausibility of staging with a dead body inside. Still, I guess everyone attributes different importance to the evidence. I have always believed this to completely preclude the staging, and thus involvement of any kind.

I was under the impression that Ron said it was thrown from outside, not necessarily from the car park. But I would defer to his work.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Well, except for the obvious fact that he maintains the others murdered her because of her hesitation to engage in sex with them.

Calling Meredith shy, reserved and possibly annoyed by sexual expression is basically a way of saying Meredith was a good girl. The fact is, he made it all up, because those who knew Meredith report her as outgoing, friendly, and socially and sexually active.

In contrast, to characterize the "killers," he brings up all the things you brought up in one of your previous posts, for example, Raffaele's so-called interest in pornography and violence, etc.

If he didn't want to condemn Amanda's sexual practices, why would he ever bring up the topic of what she kept in her transparent make-up bag?

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.

Public openness about sex does not translate to healthy attitudes about sex. It translates to keeping the patriarchy happily stimulated and to maintaining shallow, uncommitted relationships that enable polygamy and sexual abuse. And apparently it allows people to see sex in every situation, even when it isn't there.

 

[Mary_H]

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediatly a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

As Charlie and others have pointed out, you need to provide some support for your argument. You need to describe what physical evidence makes it obvious to you the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

Do Italians' sexual attitudes allow them to see the difference between violence with a sexual component and sex with a violent component? This crime consists of the first, not the second. It is very sad to think some might equate the two.

 

[billyryan]

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediately a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

The truth Machiavelli is that it is impossible to match the TOD with your three favourite perpetrators,its also impossible that three were present and such huge evidence of one and none of the other two could be found,of course you know this but you lie about this as easily as you lie about everything else in this case
Just like Mignini is lying about never having advanced a satanic rite as a motive for murder,just like Maresca is lying about Amanda's footprint being found in Meredith's bedroom,I remember others finishing their posts on Injustice Anywhere with the words "keep typing Machiavelli"I change that to keep lying Machiavelli

 

[RoseMontague]

Public openness about sex does not translate to healthy attitudes about sex. It translates to keeping the patriarchy happily stimulated and to maintaining shallow, uncommitted relationships that enable polygamy and sexual abuse. And apparently it allows people to see sex in every situation, even when it isn't there.

One thing I noticed early on were all the boobies on these Italian pages. It seems women in Italy are considered sexual objects and treated that way. IIRC, even Nadeau wrote an article about this and got a friendly visit from the cops.

 

[moije2]

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 think it doesn't matter. She / publishers had long before announce the release of her book. So the fact alone that it was coming out I think is sufficient for your suspicion there. I have wondered all along about the wiseness of publicizing their books prior to the supreme court decision. What if they had been totally mum about it ? Don't know if it would have been different but easy to speculate.