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

[Machiavelli]

And people in Mignini's position must be held to an extremely high standard of probity, integrity and honesty.

Look, there are only two reasonable alternatives regarding this Mignini business:

1) There is reasonable cause to investigate Mignini for malpractice/abuse of office.

2) There is some sort of unjustified persecution of Mignini going on, involving trumped-up or entirely false accusations.


If 1), then the process should be allowed to be followed to its conclusion. If the process is poor and/or too lengthy, that's another matter, and one should look at changing the process.

If 2) then those suspected of persecuting Mignini should themselves be investigated accordingly, and brought to account if necessary.

So which is it? 1 or 2?

The dicothomy is correct. Obviously, I believe it's definitely 2.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree.
If there is conduct which is illegal ("unethical" doesn't meany anything).

But the Knox-campaign has never been investigating any illegal conduct of the judiciary. They are instead attacking the legitimacy of a power which is acting legally, by runnung an extra-judicial tool known as macchina del fango, so basically they are a criminal and subversive force.

Seriously, quit with this nonsense right now. It's only going to get you yourself into trouble.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm just curious, Machiavelli. How did Mignini escape investigation for the 180,000 Euro cartoon?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meredith-kercher-murder-trial-prosecutor-2843678

Did Mignini throw her under a bus on this one?

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree.
If there is conduct which is illegal ("unethical" doesn't meany anything).

But the Knox-campaign has never been investigating any illegal conduct of the judiciary. They are instead attacking the legitimacy of a power which is acting legally, by runnung an extra-judicial tool known as macchina del fango, so basically they are a criminal and subversive force.

Seriously, quit with this nonsense right now. It's only going to get you yourself into trouble.

Did Machiavelli just accuse someone of committing a crime, when he knows they didn't?

Doesn't that get you into trouble in Italy?

 

[LondonJohn]

The dicothomy is correct. Obviously, I believe it's definitely 2.

So presumably Mignini and his lawyers will have the ability to ask senior powers to investigate this alleged persecution?

And you will be able to write internet commentary about those alleged to have committed the persecution?

And the senior powers will conduct a thorough and competent investigation into the matter, and identify if in fact there was a persecution against Mignini?

And if any evidence of persecution is discovered in such an investigation, the perpetrators will be held accountable appropriately?


Conversely, if there's never an investigation into suspected persecution, are we to conclude either that a) corruption reaches the very top of the Italian judicial system, and that the persecutors are being protected by their superiors, or b) that no persecution ever took place?

Which one: a or b?

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah I love it too (and it's also reminiscent of Massei's stellar reasoning about Capezzali).

"Yeah well, if I'd been asking her questions, a defence attorney would have had to have been present. A defence attorney wasn't present. Therefore that's proof that I wasn't asking her questions".



The Marx Brothers would have been proud of that self-serving mangling of logic.

Ah, er, that was Mary_H cracking up at that one, not me. I'm far more serious than the sedate Mary_H.

 

[NancyS]

I agree.
If there is conduct which is illegal ("unethical" doesn't meany anything).

In his position 'unethical' does mean something - I'm assuming he belongs to some kind of professional body, or does that not exist in Italy?

I'm a doctor and I can be investigated by my professional body for unethical behaviour, even if it isn't illegal

 

[LondonJohn]

In his position 'unethical' does mean something - I'm assuming he belongs to some kind of professional body, or does that not exist in Italy?

I'm a doctor and I can be investigated by my professional body for unethical behaviour, even if it isn't illegal

Wow, I missed this one amidst the maelstrom of bs coming the same way!

""Unethical" doesn't mean anything". ahahahahahahaha.

As you say, any member of a profession can be censured or sacked for unethical behaviour, regardless of whether or not such behaviour actually illegal. Even a building scaffolder could find himself sacked these days over the unethical behaviour of wolf-whistling at a woman walking along the street below.....

I can't quite get my head around the idea that Machiavelli doesn't appear to realise that a Public Magistrate in Italy has ethical standards to uphold that are entirely separate from the concept of behaving within the criminal law of the land. Astonishing.

 

[acbytesla]

In his position 'unethical' does mean something - I'm assuming he belongs to some kind of professional body, or does that not exist in Italy?

I'm a doctor and I can be investigated by my professional body for unethical behaviour, even if it isn't illegal

In the US Mignini would be a member for the Bar association and one can be disbarred for acting unethically for things that are NOT against the law.

 

[Supernaut]

Ah, now you're treading on my inner anxieties. This is what keeps me awake at night. How much of what I think I know is ******** foisted on me by social conditioning? Some of it surely is. But what, exactly? Where are my blind spots? By definition, I can't see them.

They don't include the Amanda Knox case, though. That I've got figured out.

It's pretty simple.

The truth is that way.

ALWAYS.

SHOCKINGLY simple.

 

[Mary_H]

Late claims from 2009

There was no interrogation after 1:45.
And there was never a claim of such by the defence: this claim that you make here has never been part of the trial.

Amanda Knox's trial testimony (which we have been through many times before) seems to have a different message:

Carlo Dalla Vedova: Because, the second [5:45 declarations] were declared to be totally inadmissible erga omnes [for any purpose] since they were violating the right to defense of a person who was substantially a suspect. This is written by the first section of the Supreme Court. The first [1:45 declarations] are not admissible contra se [against oneself], against Amanda, since those declarations were being released by the same person who was to become a suspect for that crime.

Carlo Dalla Vedova: Presidente, I renew the objection to the use of the transcript of 5:45, it has been declared inadmissible, and so it is surprising that the defense lawyer for the civil plaintiff insists on making references to this document which, as we have already said at various times, in relation to the Supreme Court ruling, was declared inadmissible, so cannot be used or even mentioned. I don't see how my colleague can continue insisting and reiterating his questions on facts which are contained in this document. I find this really quite an excess. Amanda Knox released an oral spontaneous statement to Mignini, and two further written statements.

Carlo Dalla Vedova: --if a reference is made to the facts of that night, there is no arguing [nulla quaestio]. We are in agreement, and our client is ready to answer. But I do not agree with specific references to the interrogation of 5:45 which obviously contains reported facts, because I insist that once there is a declaration of inadmissibility, it is a formal question.

***​

It is ascknowledged, now proven, that it was a statement not an interrogation; you'll never have evidence of the contrary, despite all revisited Knox-stories. They are late claims. Knox made her claims during the investigation, her defence made their claims. The witnesses gave their testimonies, Knox's acounts were inconsistent and she claimed nothing different than a statement for years, Anna Donnino's words are totally credible and has no misconduct to answer about.
The question is over.

Also from Amanda's trial testimony:

CP? Excuse me, Presidente, but this objection is really "peregrina" [bizarre]. The interrogation of November 6 at 1:45 and the nterrogation of November 6 at 5:45 have both been acquired [included in the dossier] in the body of evidence of the slander case

CP: In the interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 5:45,

CDV: This interrogation has been disallowed except for the slander case. It seems to me that it is the Kercher's defense lawyer who is asking the question.
FM: Yes.
CDV: So, we oppose this. Because all of this was reconfirmed in the following one.
AK: So, should I answer?
GCM: In what following?
CDV: The 5:45 one.FM: [simultaneously] The 5:45 one. Yes.

Why did Mignini not object to the use of the term "5:45 interrogation?"

 

[Mary_H]

I agree.
If there is conduct which is illegal ("unethical" doesn't meany anything).

But the Knox-campaign has never been investigating any illegal conduct of the judiciary. They are instead attacking the legitimacy of a power which is acting legally, by runnung an extra-judicial tool known as macchina del fango, so basically they are a criminal and subversive force.

Are you ever open to the possibility that laws can be unethical?

It looks to me as if macchina del fango is exactly what the police and prosecution did. You can't really use the media unless you have access to the media. That is why the pro-innocence supporters have always relied on the internet -- because that's where they could publish, whereas the case in Italy was presented in Italian and British tabloids.

 

[Mary_H]

Wait a minute here. Are you saying there are points of evidence not yet disclosed in, what are we up to now - 3 trials?

They're in the 50,000 pages of evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Meanwhile, Vogt is weighing in with yet more partisan conjecture, this time about the Comodi animation issue:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

Vogt has obviously not paused to ask herself the obvious question: if the accusations against Comodi were baseless or trumped up (and she is implying as much with her ostensible points towards vested interests etc), why were they not investigated and dismissed as such by the Umbria Audit Office? If there was no case to answer, why has Comodi been summoned to appear before her own standards and disciplinary body, Andrea?

Oh and Andrea: you demean yourself further by posing some sort of false equivalence in asking how much the defence might or might not have spent on this sort of stuff. As you should well know (and perhaps you DO know, but you're just being partisan and biased), the defence can spend any and all money they can afford. Knox could have commissioned a Hollywood-standard feature-film-length movie related to the case if she'd wanted to and had the money to do so. Whether it would have been admissible in court would be a different matter, of course, but that wasn't the point you were trying to make, was it Andrea?

(By the way, a final hint to ya, Andrea: we might possibly be talking here about a lot more than simply the careless misuse of public funds. Where did all that money actually end up, Andrea? Perhaps you can put on your "investigative hat" to look further into that one....)

 

[Bill Williams]

Why did Mignini not object to the use of the term "5:45 interrogation?"

Personally, I think Machiavelli's relationship to the truth is becoming more and more strained.

Mignini has no problem with a 5:45 am interrogation, now Machiavelli is fighting tooth and nail saying there wasn't one. There was a preliminary hearing yesterday which information says paves the way for a Jan 15 trial for Mr. Mignini, and Machiavelli says that it is the 15th of Jan date which is the preliminary hearing, where he says they will have no choice but to dismiss the case of abuse of office against Mignini.

All this, and if they did nothing it would simply lapse. So why do anything?

I won't even bring up again the Satanic rite theory, or the allegation from M. that Guede was Knox's pimp, because that sets him off too. So it's best to leave it alone.

Oh yes, one thing we will know in 48 hours or so, is if the Crini prosecution claims that the Kitchen knife from Raffaele's is a match or not for the outline of a knife on Meredith's sheet.

Machiavelli is a wealth of misinformation if nothing else.

 

[Bill Williams]

Meanwhile, Vogt is weighing in with yet more partisan conjecture, this time about the Comodi animation issue:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

Vogt has obviously not paused to ask herself the obvious question: if the accusations against Comodi were baseless or trumped up (and she is implying as much with her ostensible points towards vested interests etc), why were they not investigated and dismissed as such by the Umbria Audit Office? If there was no case to answer, why has Comodi been summoned to appear before her own standards and disciplinary body, Andrea?

Oh and Andrea: you demean yourself further by posing some sort of false equivalence in asking how much the defence might or might not have spent on this sort of stuff. As you should well know (and perhaps you DO know, but you're just being partisan and biased), the defence can spend any and all money they can afford. Knox could have commissioned a Hollywood-standard feature-film-length movie related to the case if she'd wanted to and had the money to do so. Whether it would have been admissible in court would be a different matter, of course, but that wasn't the point you were trying to make, was it Andrea?

(By the way, a final hint to ya, Andrea: we might possibly be talking here about a lot more than simply the careless misuse of public funds. Where did all that money actually end up, Andrea? Perhaps you can put on your "investigative hat" to look further into that one....)

While you're at it, can you ask Andrea to venture an opinion as to why Mignini managed to wiggle out of this one? Was it Mignini who threw Comodi under a bus, Andrea?

 

[acbytesla]

Personally, I think Machiavelli's relationship to the truth is becoming more and more strained.

He has a relationship? I thought it was more of a one night stand.

 

[Mary_H]

Meanwhile, Vogt is weighing in with yet more partisan conjecture, this time about the Comodi animation issue:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

Vogt has obviously not paused to ask herself the obvious question: if the accusations against Comodi were baseless or trumped up (and she is implying as much with her ostensible points towards vested interests etc), why were they not investigated and dismissed as such by the Umbria Audit Office? If there was no case to answer, why has Comodi been summoned to appear before her own standards and disciplinary body, Andrea?<snip>

I think we need to look to the same entertainment industry money that bought Hellmann. Are any of the employees of the Umbria Audit Office driving Ferraris these days?

 

[Machiavelli]

Personally, I think Machiavelli's relationship to the truth is becoming more and more strained.

Mignini has no problem with a 5:45 am interrogation, now Machiavelli is fighting tooth and nail saying there wasn't one. (...)

If you drift away like that on high waters you will lose any contact with the truth and you miss any opportunity to understand the trial. It's up to you to decide if you want to go back and face the truth.

There was never a 05:45 interrogation.
Simply it doesn't exist in the trial.
A claim of its existence was not even made.
It's as simple as that.

Not even Knox herself ever used the term "interrogation" during the whole investigation and preliminary hearing. Whenever she spoke for over two years she only referred to having released a "statement".

The 05:45 statement is filed as a spontaneous statement and nobody, not the defence nor Knox, ever claimed that an interrogation took place. This is something very big that they should have claimed and should have done that very early.

The 05:45 statement was also described in detail by Anna Donnino.

You can sail away on forever with your dreams, but in the courtroom there has never been a 05:45 interrogation - not even a discussion about its existence - and there will never be one.

 

[Dan O.]

How long did it take Amanda to repeat what she had already told the police in the first interrogation with Mrs. Donnino interpreting and a police woman officer transcribing the whole thing verbatim?

This would be a fun one to do as a video. Make it obvious that the statement is being stretched out, argue about translations, whatever. Then when the statement is finished and typed using the slowest typist in the world, have someone ask: What time to you have? At that point the director steps in very angry demanding that they have to use up the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes. someone suggests that they could break for commercials. Another suggests doing the wavy line thing and show the hands on a clock fast forwarding 2 hours.