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

[Machiavelli]

Sounds like you don't really know. That surprises me.

Know what?

What I said is correct information about the reason given by the association for mentioning Mignini's name: his presence at a conference at the University of Foreigneers.

This was somtehing you didn't know.

Why do you say instead I don't know? What's there to know?

 

[Supernaut]

If Guede did actually snap the bra-strap with brute force (and even 'burned' his hand doing it), he would have left large amounts of tissue on it, not just "touch DNA".

IOW, it would be simple matter to confirm or refute with forensic analysis of the strap.

Had this been confirmed, it would further, if not completely undermine the prosecution "theory" as to how Raffaele's DNA ended up on the clasp.

(IIRC we were simply told that Guede's DNA was on the bra strap, but not the quantities it was found in.)

I wonder if this was done?

ETA >> Dunno, this all kind of moot - it's certain the strap was snapped by yanking it, the only question is, by who? (Hmmm, tough one, let me think ....)

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
In Mignini's (and Comodi's) case, however, there seems to me to be behaviour over and above this. I think that Mignini in particular developed a zealous and pompous need to be "seen to be correct" on this case, owing perhaps to the fact that it was extremely high-profile (and also perhaps because the Perugia authorities had been widely castigated for their failures in a similar case a year previously). I think that once Mignini had tied himself into believing - genuinely, if misguidedly, in my opinion - that he and the police had identified the perps and figured out how and why the murder occurred, he became stubbornly unshakeable from his position.

I believe that Mignini (and the police and other prosecutors) thought that since they "knew" that Knox and Sollecito were involved, everything else was just noise, and that every piece of seemingly exculpatory evidence against Knox/Sollecito was either incorrect or could be explained away in terms that still rendered them guilty. This of course is just another definition of an extreme combination of tunnel vision, confirmation bias and personal vanity; and I think it's exactly what happened in this case.

Ok, this is an articulate description of the usual "face saving" scenario.
I observe: a) it's entirely speculative; b) it assumes that judicial malpractice occurred, while instead there is no evidence of that (all judges - as I said - agreed with Mignini and said the defence complaints were wrong); c) In this scenario, you don't fit the rest of a remarkable chain of judges and magistrates: Matteini, Ricciarelli, Micheli, Massei, Cristiani, Costagliola, Galati, Comodi, the Supreme Court panels, Crini (and next to come, the Florentines). Even Hellmann as for the calunnia charge and his subsequent comments where he says the prosecution made no mistakes. You need to assume as plausible that all these judges and organs had from the beginning the same emotional investment you attribute to Mignini in the case, allegedly based on pomposity and vanity. Or, even based upon a tunnel vision. Which sounds quite unreasonable. You assume that everybody suffers form the same tunnel vision. d) In this scenario, you completely obliterate the evidence and you assume it doesn't exist; e) You assume the Perugian authorities were widely castigated for another case a year before, which is an erroneous assumption; it's just false: in fact, they were only attacked in an attempt to hamper one investigation by another local office (Florence), but Perugia was right on all their stances at the Supreme Court; some Florentine courts and magistrates (like Maradei, Nannuci) meanwhile were castigated; f) if the "Italian" authorities in general were worried about their image in a "saving face" policy, it would have been very easy for the Supreme Court to look "good" in the eyes of people like you by saying Hellmann was right, or that Mignini was wrong; g) you basically admit yourself that your scenario is "extreme".

 

[Grinder]

Not time enough to read the snipped point list.

Just to say this: at least, I think you can realize that Maresca will never be paid further money, beyond what he is already paid by the Kercher. Because - you may well be aware of it - it is not realistic to expect Knox or Sollecito would ever pay any damage reward.
Knox ownes nothing in Italy; if Sollecito still ownes something, this would be transferred to a trust located at the Cayman Islands by the time of his conviction.
The two defendants will never pay.
It's completely unrealistic to expect otherwise.
So Maresca would be doing that for nothing, if that was his aim.
Obviously, a perspective that the defendants could pay cannot be what motivates him.

In Italy people can move assets in this way to avoid judgments?

Here even a simple bankruptcy will have the courts undoing transactions that have the appearance of trying to avoid a fair distribution. If the trust was set up before the case that might shield the assets.

 

[Grinder]

me and Grinder.

Yes Bill I would now like to see your proof. I think you've helped make this far more than it deserves but if you say Mignini claimed it was a satanic rite then you should be able to provide the quote.

The early reports didn't have attributions that I recall but perhaps you can find them.

Asking Mach to provide all the court transcripts seems ass-backwards. If he provided a 1000 pages you would say he removed the reference.

I'd say you are as off-base on this as backing Hellmann's calunnia conviction.

 

[Diocletus]

That, to me, is one of the sadder aspects of this whole sorry saga. I think that the Kerchers became emotionally wedded to the prosecution case early on. This was understandable, given the combination of grief, confusion, language/culture barriers, media support/complicity, and apparent judicial validation.

I think that anything that now contradicts this version of the crime probably triggers cognitive dissonance in them. I think the easiest way for them to deal with any cognitive dissonance is to decide that the prosecutors are correct and that any other voices are wrong or biased.

To tie this to another current issue, John Kercher had the means, method and opportunity to leak the house of horrors picture to a British tab. What if the Kerchers engaged in an affirmative effort to taint the defendants in the press? That would explain why they are so wedded to their guilt scenario--because to admit otherwise would be to concede that they have engaged in a horrendous crime against justice.

 

[Machiavelli]

These quotes are from The Witch of Perugia by Spezi and Preston.

What you have in that last quote is an admission from the Milan authorities that Rudy would have been in jail if not for the intervention of the Perugian authorities. I wonder if the Kercher family is aware of this?

This is Spezi's story. Not an admission by someone.
(Also because, btw, it is just proven that the Miilan authorities had no legal basis to put Rudy in jail - only non-Italian people ignorant about the law attempt to dispute this and buy Spezi's story).

But all this doesn't matter as for Spezi: you said you rsearched Spezi's version of the story, and Spezi needs to explain while he was caught together (having links etc.) with people from the Neaples mafia and other criminals while attempting to place false evidence against Vinci.

Spezi should actually explain also why he was attempting to sidetrack the investigation on the Monster of Florence case many years before, in another city and with other investogators. Or he might explain while apparently he was working as an informant for SISDE while pretending to be a journalist, or why the family doctor of Mr. Pacciani - the main convict in the MoF case - was also working for SISDE, and the fact that Pacciani died of a heart attack after assuming an anti-asthma medicament (potentially lethal for cardiopaths), the day before his appeal trial would start.
Ask Spezi to answer about details like those.

 

[Bill Williams]

(all judges - as I said - agreed with Mignini and said the defence complaints were wrong); c) In this scenario, you don't fit the rest of a remarkable chain of judges and magistrates: Matteini, Ricciarelli, Micheli, Massei, Cristiani, Costagliola, Galati, Comodi, the Supreme Court panels, Crini (and next to come, the Florentines). Even Hellmann as for the calunnia charge and his subsequent comments where he says the prosecution made no mistakes. You need to assume as plausible that all these judges and organs had from the beginning the same emotional investment you attribute to Mignini in the case, allegedly based on pomposity and vanity. Or, even based upon a tunnel vision. Which sounds quite unreasonable. You assume that everybody suffers form the same tunnel vision. d) In this scenario, you completely obliterate the evidence and you assume it doesn't exist;

As long as Mignini himself is the issue, yes, all these judges were more interested in protecting the original prosecutor, not necessarily the details of the prosecution. The judges on the front end of this list were perhaps caught up in the haunting scandal of the crime, and would simply go along with Mignini's initial fantastic scenarios, simply with gratitude that he'd solved a horrible crime (without the need for evidence, as even the PLE bragged about!)

And it stayed in this "osmotic" evaluation all the way through, with the exception of Hellmann and Zanetti's court, who actually judged the prosecution of two innocents on the merits of the case.

The best part of the Italian system is the necessity of a motivations report to justify a verdict. Where this "osmotic" evaluation of this crime (which allegedly involves Sollecito and Knox) falls apart is in the details. It's no wonder guilters and haters, then, refuse to go there - simply refuse to put together a systematic timeline which explains the evidence...

It can't be done. The ones who have tried, failed. In fact, the ones who try have to put together a very different case than advanced by Mignini!!! (Eg. Massei has an innocent reason for Amanda carrying a large kitchen knife, Mignini has a sinister one.)

It's why Machiavelli pooh-poohs Massei's motivations report. O yes, he thinks he's pooh-poohing my own claims about the Massei report - but fortunately the Massei Report is there for everyone to read.

Machiavelli is quite correct - Massei upheld the guilty verdicts. He did so, perhaps, Osmotically. Because when one reads the report, little of it sustains Mignini on specifics.

For Massei, this is Rudy's crime. It's his motive and his actions. He's the guilty bastard. And as for Amanda and Raffaele, they are typical college kids with normal pasts and promising futures who made a brief choice for evil and decided at the last minute to join in with disastrous results.

Note this about Massei - there is no, "Amanda in the hall directing the boys," there is no "sex game gone wrong," there is no "Satanic Rite," there is no "revenge killing because Amanda and Meredith were not getting along."

In Massei's reconstruction this is Rudy's crime. He's got the motive, means and opportunity, and R and A join in at the last second because of a choice for evil. That's it.

Machiavelli can disagree.... but fortunately everyone here can go read Massei for themselves.

As for the specifics of Mignini's version, what did Massei write about? Massei has no psychopathoogy for R and A, Amanda and Meredith have an otherwise normal relationship, there is no mixed blood in the cottage, Raffaele indeed DID call the carabinieri BEFORE the Postal Police arrived, there is no trace of Amanda in the murder room, there was no (substantive) contact between Amanda and Rudy before this and none between Raffaele and Rudy before this, there is no constant changing of stories by either Amanda or Raffaele, the climb in through Filomena's window is very doable (recently demonstrated by Channel 5 in England), there is no scientific/forensic reason to rule out a single attacker (yes, this is in Massei!), and Massei only theorizes about a clean-up in the hall, meaning that there is neither any direct circumstanital or physical evidence of a clean-up anywhere in the cottage, save for awkward wiping of blood that is immediate recognizable and not attributable to Knox or Sollecito.

Complain all you want, Machiavelli - but all this is from Massei. Everyone can read this for themselves.

And, yes, Massei "osmotically" agreed with the prosecution on overall guilt. But Massei had to literally reinvent the case to do it.

The difference was that the ISC returned to this notion of looking at the crime "osmotically", and it returned the case to the appeals' level based on twelve points.

How's the knife DNA evidence going? How did Aviello go?

As long as we put on blinders and trust Mignini then the two will be found guilty.

But if we actually READ things like Massei's report - read the thing, Machiavelli - the specifics of ANY case finding guilt for those two simply do not add up.

It's the reason why you do not even try. It's also the reason you have never said, "it's already been done," and then you point to Massei.

I know why you do not point to Massei. And I know why you don't try yourself.

 

[Diocletus]

Ok, this is an articulate description of the usual "face saving" scenario.
I observe: a) it's entirely speculative; b) it assumes that judicial malpractice occurred, while instead there is no evidence of that (all judges - as I said - agreed with Mignini and said the defence complaints were wrong); c) In this scenario, you don't fit the rest of a remarkable chain of judges and magistrates: Matteini, Ricciarelli, Micheli, Massei, Cristiani, Costagliola, Galati, Comodi, the Supreme Court panels, Crini (and next to come, the Florentines). Even Hellmann as for the calunnia charge and his subsequent comments where he says the prosecution made no mistakes. You need to assume as plausible that all these judges and organs had from the beginning the same emotional investment you attribute to Mignini in the case, allegedly based on pomposity and vanity. Or, even based upon a tunnel vision..

Well, those judges uncritically accepted a steady diet of debunked and false evidence that Mignini was feeding them. So, both their competency and independence is in serious question. Also, they seem stupid. I don't think they went to real law schools.

 

[Machiavelli]

In Italy people can move assets in this way to avoid judgments?

Here even a simple bankruptcy will have the courts undoing transactions that have the appearance of trying to avoid a fair distribution. If the trust was set up before the case that might shield the assets.

It's going to be very difficult to recover assets once they are transferred. Even if a legal action is achieved, you won't recover the money in practice. Sollecito's assets have not even been frozen as far as I know, so by now everything could be gone.
Sollecito may also transfer the assets to a family member.

 

[Diocletus]

It's going to be very difficult to recover assets once they are transferred. Even if a legal action is achieved, you won't recover the money in practice. Sollecito's assets have not even been frozen as far as I know, so by now everything could be gone.
Sollecito may also transfer the assets to a family member.

I agree with Machiavelli. There is no chance that any if the plaintiffs will be able to recover any existing assets from the deFendants. Maybe future publication rights, whatever they might be worth.

 

[Dan O.]

Whatever, essentially we're postulating that these marks on Guede's hand might be 'friction burns' which didn't bleed at all.

In the Skype call, Rudy says the cut he received didn't bleed. I find this unbelievable for any knife wound received in a fight. Though it is just speculation, a friction burn would feel like a cut but wouldn't necessarily bleed.

R. ...I was trying to help her, Giacomo, it's not that...my blood, no, I don't know if there is any or not, because I didn't bleed, I didn't actually bleed, my wounds that I had, the guy just wounded me lightly, it didn't bleed, now I can't tell you...
​

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes Bill I would now like to see your proof. I think you've helped make this far more than it deserves but if you say Mignini claimed it was a satanic rite then you should be able to provide the quote.

The early reports didn't have attributions that I recall but perhaps you can find them.

Asking Mach to provide all the court transcripts seems ass-backwards. If he provided a 1000 pages you would say he removed the reference.

I'd say you are as off-base on this as backing Hellmann's calunnia conviction.

Good for you. I am not asking Mach to provide the court documents, Mach says he HAS the court documents which demonstrate this. Once again, he makes the assertion and does not provide proof.

Machiavelli has confirmed that Barbie Nadeau believes the Satanic theory was in play. He calls her a liar. He also confirms that John Kercher thought the "controversial" Satanic theory was in play. Fortunately Machiavelli does not call Kercher a liar, just says he is misinformed.

I do not believe I have this ass-backwards. Machiavelli already says he has the documents. He's unwilling to provide them.

Every journalist early on reported on Mignini's theories, as they were variously leaked to the press.... were they all wrong? Machiavelli wants a list of Italian journalists who said this.... gee, I wonder why?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's going to be very difficult to recover assets once they are transferred. Even if a legal action is achieved, you won't recover the money in practice. Sollecito's assets have not even been frozen as far as I know, so by now everything could be gone.
Sollecito may also transfer the assets to a family member.

If transferred after the proceedings have begun, and the end-result finds liability then the court can nullify the transfer. Unless the funds end up somewhere outside of the judicial reach of the court, they are easily reversible within the institutions themselves who will obey the order.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree with Machiavelli. There is no chance that any if the plaintiffs will be able to recover any existing assets from the deFendants. Maybe future publication rights, whatever they might be worth.

I don't agree, Maresca may not have been able to see the future and wouldn't know they'd be freed at appeal, and thus have an opportunity to put their assets in order. Not all cases have a victim's lawyer, generally it's the reserve of slam dunk convictions from what I read at PMF before I ever posted on this case.

However, as most defendants don't have anywhere near the amount of cash that might be awarded, the victim's lawyer is usually there to ensure that the defendants get the maximum punishment, and in this case he has failed utterly in that regard. By totally selling out to Mignini and his theory, Rudy got migrations and didn't receive aggravations he may have had Maresca performed his duties ethically. Amanda and Raffaele were given extra years on their sentences for the robbing of Meredith and 'staging' the break-in which worked out wonderfully for Rudy who may well be walking the streets while Amanda and Raffaele are still fighting it out through this baroque corrupt system.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

prosecutors should seek justice

In a 1998 article in the Fordham Urban Law Journal Bruce Green wrote, "The literature of the legal profession refers to the prosecutor's duty to "seek justice"8 or "do justice,"9 a professional ideal that analogizes prosecutors to judges and distinguishes prosecutors from other lawyers. The concept dates back well over a century." Mr. Sollecito was put into solitary confinement for months before he and Ms. Knox were sent to trial (October 2008). Among many others, that was an unjust act. MOO.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, those judges uncritically accepted a steady diet of debunked and false evidence that Mignini was feeding them. So, both their competency and independence is in serious question. Also, they seem stupid. I don't think they went to real law schools.

Machiavelli doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand that certain closed groups - particularly if they are authority groups - both can and do go to extraordinary lengths to protect those within the group, and the perceived integrity of the group as a whole.

This phenomenon can easily be observed applying to schoolteachers, parents, doctors, police officers, members of the judiciary.....

I can't for example, be bothered right now to dig out an example of where the medical community has lied and obfuscated to protect one or more medical professionals who had engaged in malpractice or neglect. Everyone can choose their own favourites though - these sorts of events are legion and somewhat commonplace.

And, in the same way, it's far from uncommon for members of the judiciary to engage in similar behaviour to protect and defend individuals within the law enforcement community, even where in order to do so they have to either turn a blind eye to malpractice or even sometimes tell flat-out lies as part of the wagon-circling strategy.

One of the more high-profile examples of this behaviour over the past 30 years was the notorious case of the Birmingham Six:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six


There was extreme police malpractice, including violence and coercion by police officers against the accused, and incompetent, confirmation-biased work by the lead forensic scientist on the case (does any of this sound familiar....?). However, in spite of clear evidence to support the above malpractice, the trial judge and two subsequent panels of appeal judges simply refused to accept that this sort of thing could have happened. Indeed, Lord Denning - who was at the time Master of the Rolls and the most senior appeal court judge in England and Wales - refused the convicted men leave to appeal a civil action against the police, in a judgement that included the following memorable passage:

Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Denning,_Baron_Denning


It perhaps goes without saying that these words came back to haunt Denning when it was finally accepted that the police indeed had engaged in just the sort of behaviour that Denning had deemed simply impossible to comprehend.

It also goes to say that the whole Birmingham Six episode was a sad indictment of the England/Wales judicial process, and was a classic example of the way in which closed authority groups act to protect their own and to protect the system as a whole. Fortunately, it seems that this case - and a few others - served as a learning tool for the judiciary in this country. England and Wales now has a more transparent and open judiciary, with an appropriate level of trust in the police. Indeed, police malpractice led directly to the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in 1984, meaning that police essentially now have to demonstrate conclusively that malpractice has not taken place before police evidence will be taken at face value by the courts.

The system in England and Wales is still far from perfect, of course, but it's probably now close to the best possible and most practicable system.

If only Italy's police and judiciary had also taken a look at itself in the mirror, and if the Italian government had been wise enough and strong enough to bring in legislation to minimise the possibility of injustice....

 

[davefoc]

Yes Bill I would now like to see your proof. I think you've helped make this far more than it deserves but if you say Mignini claimed it was a satanic rite then you should be able to provide the quote.
...

This seems to be coming down to a mostly semantic issue. The term, Satanic rite, can have a fairly broad definition or it can be have a literal narrow definition. If the broad definition is assumed then it would apply to a range of occult, horror related rite like activities. Arguably some of the motives Mignini suggested fit into this broad definition of Satanic rites such as the Manga comic book references and the ambiguous references to Halloween.

If the term, Satanic rite, is interpreted narrowly then it refers to a rite practiced by groups that worship Satan. Although, Mignini proposed a variety of motive theories I don't think there is any evidence that he proposed that the murders involved Satan worship or rites associated with Satan cults.

I think to sustain a claim that Mignini ever intended to ascribe a Satanic rite as his motive theory one would need to either find a direct quote by him using the term or one would need to find references that come much closer to the narrow definition of Satanic rite that seem to be available. As such it looks to me like Grinder is correct here.

Machiavell's claims go a bit beyond the semantic issue if I understand him correctly. He proposes that Mignini was not involved in the early lurid descriptions of the crime and that Mignini's silence about the early lurid theories of the crime are not an accurate indicator of what Mignini was actually saying about the crime. Machiavelli also proposes that the use of the Halloween in Mignini's court statement had to do with the timing of the crime and didn't have anything to do with what Mignini was proposing as to the nature of the crime.

I doubt that Machiavelli is correct here, but is it possible to be sure? My assumption that the early sensationalistic media coverage of this crime was orchestrated by Mignini, but is this knowable or even correct? It might be, but it is definitely not known to be true by me.

 

[Bill Williams]

There's only time to quote Massei on one item here - the question is: whose crime was this acc. to Massei's recreation. Please note, that Massei completely reinvents the prosecution's claims here.

Amanda and Raffaele, having arrived at the house slightly after 23.00 pm, it should be considered that they went into Amanda’s room with the intention of being together, in intimacy...... Amanda and Raffaele who were together in Amanda’s house; together in Amanda’s room and alone, since Meredith was in her own room and Rudy, as previously mentioned, was in the bathroom.

It is therefore probable that Rudy, coming out of the bathroom, let himself be carried away by a situation that he perceived as being charged with sexual stimuli and, giving in to his sexual urges, sought to satisfy them by going into Meredith’s room, where she was alone with the door at least partly open

That Rudy then yielded to his lust, and tried to find sexual satisfaction with Meredith, is revealed by how Meredith’s body was found: wearing only a little t-shirt, pushed up to expose her breasts and for the rest completely nude, and by the results of the vaginal swab which showed biological traces of Rudy. There can be no doubt that the part of the girl’s body which Rudy had ‚lingered over‛ to the extent that he left his biological traces on her......

Please note that Massei disbelieves that Rudy went into Meredith's room at Amanda and or Raffaele's urging. This means that it was NOT a sex game gone wrong, a result of Amanda's "revenge seeking" against Meredith, OR a Satanic rite. Please read this..... it debunks everything Mignini (and hence Machiavelli) have said.... it's no wonder Machiavelli does not even attempt a comprehensive narrative of the crime....

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms (the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.

Caso chiuso, Machiavelli.

As if Mignini's sexual fantasies were not enough..... look what Massei adds to this....

It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.

So give it up, Machiavelli. The motive, according to Massei, was Rudy's. That you continue to say that "Massei sustained and believed Mignini" is hogwash.

This is when Massei turns all speculative.... with no evidence whatsoever, Massei now says that Knox and Raffaele simply react to the fact that Rudy is harrassing Meredith in Meredith's room, and inexplicably, with no cause for Massei to speculate, Massei suddenly has both Raffaele AND Amanda take Rudy's side over against Meredith. This is even in the face of Massei's own concession in previous sentences that Amanda and Raffaele had no motive to do this.

And the only "motive" that Massei can provide for this inexplicable reversal of events is that Amanda and Raffaele made a "choice for evil", in what was Rudy's motive and action.

You see, even Massei is mind-boggled at his own speculation:

Why, then, two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests, resolved to participate in an action aimed at forcing the will of Meredith, with whom they had, especially Amanda, a relationship of regular meetings and cordiality, to the point of causing her death, falls within the continual exercise of choice among [the range of] possibilities, and this Court can only register the choice of extreme evil which was put into practice. It can be hypothesised that this choice of evil began with the [393] consumption of drugs which had happened also that evening, as Amanda testified.

This is not "psychopathology", indeed, acc. to Massei these kids are normal - they just made a bad choice because of drugs, a brief "choice for evil".

Massei tries to also justify this on the bases of Raffaele's comic books....

But look at the conclusion Massei arrives at. It is now complete.... Massei has completely rewritten every one of Mignini's previous motives....

A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The motive arises from Rudy. Caso chiuso.

These remarks by Massei can be repeated for every one of the other things he says which deviate from Mignini's case. Mixed-blood, Amanda and Meredith's normal friendship, no forensic presence of Knox in the murder room, Raffaele calling the caribineri BEFORE the arrival of the postal police....

Critical elements of Mignini's case lay in the trash heap... and this is Massei, who has to reinvent Mignini's case in order to convict.

Over to you Machiavelli? What's your reinvention of this case?

 

[LondonJohn]

In a 1998 article in the Fordham Urban Law Journal Bruce Green wrote, "The literature of the legal profession refers to the prosecutor's duty to "seek justice"8 or "do justice,"9 a professional ideal that analogizes prosecutors to judges and distinguishes prosecutors from other lawyers. The concept dates back well over a century." Mr. Sollecito was put into solitary confinement for months before he and Ms. Knox were sent to trial (October 2008). Among others, that was an unjust act. MOO.

Exactly. In virtually every modern jurisdiction (including the US, UK and Italy), criminal prosecutors are agents of the state. As such, they present the case of the state (in UK jurisdictions, it's still technically the case of the sovereign - i.e. Queen Elizabeth II at the moment) against the defendant(s). They do not present the case of the victim against the defendant(s).

With this in mind, criminal prosecutors - as you say - have more obligations and responsibilities than criminal defence lawyers, who are acting purely on behalf of the defendant(s).