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

[LondonJohn]

Too much time with Anglo and Bill. They had her "accusation/confession" and confused imprecise account of her activities that night. It seems clear that in Italy keeping people locked up isn't very difficult. If anybody was about to get out it would be Raf as they had nothing on him except delaying telling the "truth" about Amanda going out.



If he sent out emails to his professors they should have received them and the school's system should have kept them for some time. If he used an email program like Outlook the sent emails would be there. If he used the cloud then the sent emails should be on their server.

I don't see why four years after the event he would say he was emailing if there was no trace unless he was specifically contending that the evidence was destroyed by the PLE saute of his computer.

I agree with the PGP that Raf isn't the brightest bulb and should STFU.

Where do you get the understanding that he had DSL that was always on? As I said above, Europe has had high costs for things we pay little for here and it is easily believable to me that he paid attention to usage. Meredith was said to be very frugal with cell phone minutes at a time that most of us here had unlimited minutes.

All of Western Europe had ubiquitous DSL broadband availability in 2006/2007, and it was reasonably priced for something like a 512kbps or 1Mbps connection. DSL was a mature technology in most of Europe - including Italy - in 2007. I first got a residential DSL connection in London in early 2001, and it had been a near-nationwide service for a good year or so before even then.

I would think that it's very highly likely that Sollecito, being a computer science undergraduate with access to a fixed-line telephone, would have had a DSL always-on broadband connection.

Incidentally, regarding cellphone frugality, up until a few years ago there was a huge problem across Europe with high costs of intra-EU international calling (i.e. using your cellphone to call another country) and international roaming (i.e. using your cellphone in a different country). That's why Meredith might have been very careful with calling back to the UK. The problem has been addressed and substantially rebalanced by the EU Competition Commission since then.

 

[acbytesla]

Did anyone ever say DSL wasn't available? Other than your P2P analysis is there any proof or source that he had DSL? I'm not saying he didn't, but I would like some explanation that makes sense as to why the emails haven't surfaced at the recipients.

The simple fact that Raffaele left running a P2P would tell you Grinder that Raffaele was running some sort of broadband service. The cottage definitely had DSL. In fact, Amanda wrote that she was delighted they had the service.

But seriously Grinder, In 2007 broadband service was ubiquitous. There was much more complete market penetration in Europe than in the US and it was cheaper there. But by 2007 broadband was everywhere. I think you must be thinking this is 1995 not 2007. And as a computer geek with money, Raffaele would most certainly have had it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that if he sent emails, he sent them too late to be an alibi. If he released the information, it would expose the recipients to unwanted scrutiny, both inside and outside of Italy, if you get my drift. Therefore, I think that Raffaele is behaving in a reasonably intelligent way by not releasing that information.

I am not certain that the full extent of the loss of metadata was confined to the Stardust file, but more documentation would be helpful. MOO.

This, in my opinion, is the salient point here. Whether or not Sollecito ever composed or sent those emails, or whether or not he can ever prove (or anyone can disprove) that he did so, is of zero evidential value when assessing guilt for the murder.

As a reductio ad absurdum, his claim has similar real value (i.e. non-value) to (for example) a claim by Sollecito that he spent the time between 2am and 4am on 4th November 2007 playing table tennis with Henry Kissinger.

The only thing that even a cast-iron disproof of Sollecito's email claim would do would be to lower his credibility, and to pose the question of why he might a false (and falsifiable) claim in this manner. But it's obvious to even an idiot that this email claim in no way whatsoever constitutes an alibi, since it's still clearly possible for Sollecito to have written these emails and committed the murder. Therefore it could never be seen as some sort of an attempt by a guilty man to create a false alibi.

I suspect that if Sollecito's claim is correct, he might well have stored drafts locally for sending the following day: it's perfectly reasonable that one might prefer one's professors not to receive emails time-stamped 3am or whatever. And if he stored them locally, then they might well have been lost in the police incompetence regarding his hard drive. But I reiterate that it makes virtually no difference either way.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I feel strongly that neither Sollecito nor Knox has any "need" - and far less "obligation" - to provide any sort of proof, evidence or explanation to the wider public.

On the "need" front, I think they should be focussing on the court process to demonstrate their non-guilt/innocence. There are only a vanishingly small number of cases (OJ Simpson etc) where acquittals are held in wide disregard by significant swathes of the population. My view is that if/when Knox and Sollecito are acquitted in the Italian courts, the vast majority of people (well, people who might possibly matter to Knox or Sollecito) would consider them innocent. Remember, there are still a small number of bitter nutters who consider Lindy Chamberlain to have "got away" with the "murder" of her baby. You'll never be able to eradicate that sort of extreme human behaviour, but nor should you worry about it.

On "obligation", this is self-evidently ridiculous. Neither Knox nor Sollecito "owes" any sort of explanation to anyone outside of a) the courts, b) their lawyers, and c) those they love (family and friends).

 

[LondonJohn]

Basically evidence must be looked at as a whole and each piece can't be judged on its own and that is why the ISC threw out Hellmann's verdict.

And of course Crini - and the SC - is correct. It's not that each piece of evidence needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's that each piece of evidence needs to be assessed both individually and alongside all the other evidence, and this holistic assessment must then be used to judge whether all the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But what the SC and Crini get spectacularly wrong, in my opinion, is that some pieces of evidence are so critical to the proof of the case in overall terms that simply raising doubt about them can make all the difference to whether guilt of the crime itself has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in some cases, it IS indeed possible to say that if one particular piece of evidence is untrustworthy or unreliable, that on its own provides sufficient reasonable doubt to warrant an acquittal. I think that this was exactly what Hellmann was articulating regarding the forensic "evidence".

I've used Bugliosi's "rope" metaphor before for assessing proof, but it bears repeating again to illustrate the above point. Basically, each piece of evidence can be regarded as a strand in a rope connecting the defendant to the crime. Some pieces might be only peripherally proof of guilt, so in this metaphor they would be represented by very thin strands. Some - such as reliable DNA or fingerprints - might be represented by very thick,strong strands.

Each strand is twisted together to form the rope. Then, at the deliberation stage, the rope is "pulled" to see whether there are sufficient strands to prevent the rope from breaking. If there are many thin strands (i.e. many pieces of weak circumstantial evidence), this may still be enough to construct a sufficiently thick and strong overall rope that will not break. Likewise, if there's even only one or two strands -if they're sufficiently thick and strong, the rope will not break. If the rope doesn't break, the court should convict.

Using this metaphor, I'd say that the case against Knox and Sollecito consisted of several small thin strands and a few potentially thick strands: the DNA evidence, the "mixed blood" evidence, the "break-in" evidence and the bathmat print evidence. I'd therefore say that if these thick strands can be shown to be unreliable and therefore removed from the rope, this in itself will cause the rope to break since the remaining several thin strands simply will not hold when pulled.

 

[Bill Williams]

By the way, I feel strongly that neither Sollecito nor Knox has any "need" - and far less "obligation" - to provide any sort of proof, evidence or explanation to the wider public.

On the "need" front, I think they should be focussing on the court process to demonstrate their non-guilt/innocence. There are only a vanishingly small number of cases (OJ Simpson etc) where acquittals are held in wide disregard by significant swathes of the population. My view is that if/when Knox and Sollecito are acquitted in the Italian courts, the vast majority of people (well, people who might possibly matter to Knox or Sollecito) would consider them innocent. Remember, there are still a small number of bitter nutters who consider Lindy Chamberlain to have "got away" with the "murder" of her baby. You'll never be able to eradicate that sort of extreme human behaviour, but nor should you worry about it.

On "obligation", this is self-evidently ridiculous. Neither Knox nor Sollecito "owes" any sort of explanation to anyone outside of a) the courts, b) their lawyers, and c) those they love (family and friends).

This is the issue (the one highlighted) that folk are missing, meaning the folk who are going on and on and on about this. I agree, the issue of e-mails in the middle of the night contributes nothing, positive or negative, to the salient issues as brought by the prosecution to court... in Sept 2013 to Jan 2014.

This is not about being credible or non-credible, really, this is about winning. Unfortunately.

So what Sollecito has to focus on is how the ISC set up this de novo appeals trial, and how Crini is prosecuting it, with a best guess as to what is going to be determinative for Nencini.

I will not make a prediction here, as my own predictions are very poor indicators of what will actually happen.

But between Aviello basically saying what he said years ago, with the RIS Carabinieri basically confirming Conti and Vecchiotti that Stefanoni's results were pure fiction, and with Crini saying:

- the kitchen knife, now lost because of DNA, is now suddenly a match for the bedsheet outline
- that the motive the ISC wanted reexamined, the sex-game gone wrong, is now in the toilet (literally!)​

It is clear what Sollecito needs to focus upon to win.

The ISC has served notice, back in March 2013, that this is not about the truth. This is about winning and losing. The ISC is quite willing to reinterpret and sacrifice international forensic DNA standards on the altar of some sort of uniquely Italian dietrology.

With Mignini way up in the stands now - with Mignini now facing his own retrial for abuse of office - with Comodi being stared down by humourless accountants over the cartoon-in-court - with Napoleoni having her own legal troubles.... the list goes on and on....

One can only wonder why the ISC saw fit not to turn the page on this, and risk international and/or ECHR ridicule.

But aside from the few remaining, and frankly quite nutty guilters, it is clear neither Knox nor Sollecito "owes" any sort of explanation to anyone on these minutiae.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is the issue (the one highlighted) that folk are missing, meaning the folk who are going on and on and on about this. I agree, the issue of e-mails in the middle of the night contributes nothing, positive or negative, to the salient issues as brought by the prosecution to court... in Sept 2013 to Jan 2014.

This is not about being credible or non-credible, really, this is about winning. Unfortunately.

So what Sollecito has to focus on is how the ISC set up this de novo appeals trial, and how Crini is prosecuting it, with a best guess as to what is going to be determinative for Nencini.

I will not make a prediction here, as my own predictions are very poor indicators of what will actually happen.

But between Aviello basically saying what he said years ago, with the RIS Carabinieri basically confirming Conti and Vecchiotti that Stefanoni's results were pure fiction, and with Crini saying:

- the kitchen knife, now lost because of DNA, is now suddenly a match for the bedsheet outline
- that the motive the ISC wanted reexamined, the sex-game gone wrong, is now in the toilet (literally!)​

It is clear what Sollecito needs to focus upon to win.

The ISC has served notice, back in March 2013, that this is not about the truth. This is about winning and losing. The ISC is quite willing to reinterpret and sacrifice international forensic DNA standards on the altar of some sort of uniquely Italian dietrology.

With Mignini way up in the stands now - with Mignini now facing his own retrial for abuse of office - with Comodi being stared down by humourless accountants over the cartoon-in-court - with Napoleoni having her own legal troubles.... the list goes on and on....

One can only wonder why the ISC saw fit not to turn the page on this, and risk international and/or ECHR ridicule.

But aside from the few remaining, and frankly quite nutty guilters, it is clear neither Knox nor Sollecito "owes" any sort of explanation to anyone on these minutiae.

"Where are your police statements from 5th/6th November, Raffles???? Why haven't you provided them to us???!"

 

[Grinder]

This, in my opinion, is the salient point here. Whether or not Sollecito ever composed or sent those emails, or whether or not he can ever prove (or anyone can disprove) that he did so, is of zero evidential value when assessing guilt for the murder.

Not zero. If it proved he was up until the 5:30 music session that would explain his not waking until 10 am recounting of the evening , which is used as another "lie" he told.

As a reductio ad absurdum, his claim has similar real value (i.e. non-value) to (for example) a claim by Sollecito that he spent the time between 2am and 4am on 4th November 2007 playing table tennis with Henry Kissinger.

Not at all.

The only thing that even a cast-iron disproof of Sollecito's email claim would do would be to lower his credibility, and to pose the question of why he might a false (and falsifiable) claim in this manner. But it's obvious to even an idiot that this email claim in no way whatsoever constitutes an alibi, since it's still clearly possible for Sollecito to have written these emails and committed the murder. Therefore it could never be seen as some sort of an attempt by a guilty man to create a false alibi.

Well yes lowered credibility would at the heart of it. Only an idiot would not see that the late, late night emailing or other computer use would make his story of waking at 10 more credible considering the early morning music session.

I suspect that if Sollecito's claim is correct, he might well have stored drafts locally for sending the following day: it's perfectly reasonable that one might prefer one's professors not to receive emails time-stamped 3am or whatever. And if he stored them locally, then they might well have been lost in the police incompetence regarding his hard drive. But I reiterate that it makes virtually no difference either way.

Well that's what I had asked about and no one seems to know if he was email using the cloud or an email program such as Outlook.

Regardless it is odd that he would mention something in his book of this nature that he can't prove.

 

[LondonJohn]

I notice that it's recently been categorically proven that Meredith's door had a pre-existing crack in it before it was broken down by Luca Altieri: Altieri's explicitly describes the crack in his court testimony, and he testifies that when he asked Sollecito about the crack, Sollecito told him that it was the result of his (Sollecito's) aborted effort to break down the door himself.

There goes another crackpot pro-guilt theory about there being no more than a "blemish" on the door, and that Knox/Sollecito invented the "crack" story later as a false embellishment. Ahahahahahaha.

And by the way, I can see a perfectly plausible reason why Knox and/or Sollecito would not have gone so far as to completely break in the door before the police arrived. Remember that they were in a rental property, and that they only had (growing) concerns about Meredith at that point. I think therefore that it's entirely feasible that they tried with a certain amount of force to open the door, but that when the first crack appeared, they stopped rather than inflict additional - and more severe - damage.

By contrast, when the police arrived, carrying Meredith's two phones that had been thrown into a random garden, the ante was obviously upped massively. In addition, the police effectively gave tacit approval for Altieri to break down the door (despite the fact that they were not prepared to do the breaking-down themselves, since they apparently worried that it might land them in trouble later).

Therefore,in my opinion, those pro-guilt commentators who "argue" that it's somehow "fishy" that neither Knox nor Sollecito could force open the door are totally missing the point that they were likely not trying their hardest to force the door - for fear of totally breaking the door and/or frame. As so very often, it's poor reasoning and confirmation bias on behalf of these commentators.

 

[Bill Williams]

I notice that it's recently been categorically proven that Meredith's door had a pre-existing crack in it before it was broken down by Luca Altieri: Altieri's explicitly describes the crack in his court testimony, and he testifies that when he asked Sollecito about the crack, Sollecito told him that it was the result of his (Sollecito's) aborted effort to break down the door himself.

There goes another crackpot pro-guilt theory about there being no more than a "blemish" on the door, and that Knox/Sollecito invented the "crack" story later as a false embellishment. Ahahahahahaha.

And by the way, I can see a perfectly plausible reason why Knox and/or Sollecito would not have gone so far as to completely break in the door before the police arrived. Remember that they were in a rental property, and that they only had (growing) concerns about Meredith at that point. I think therefore that it's entirely feasible that they tried with a certain amount of force to open the door, but that when the first crack appeared, they stopped rather than inflict additional - and more severe - damage.

By contrast, when the police arrived, carrying Meredith's two phones that had been thrown into a random garden, the ante was obviously upped massively. In addition, the police effectively gave tacit approval for Altieri to break down the door (despite the fact that they were not prepared to do the breaking-down themselves, since they apparently worried that it might land them in trouble later).

Therefore,in my opinion, those pro-guilt commentators who "argue" that it's somehow "fishy" that neither Knox nor Sollecito could force open the door are totally missing the point that they were likely not trying their hardest to force the door - for fear of totally breaking the door and/or frame. As so very often, it's poor reasoning and confirmation bias on behalf of these commentators.

The only person in the universe who wanted that door broken down was Filomena, and then only when she learned that Meredith was without her phones. To suspect RS and/or AK on that point is the equivalent to suspecting Battistelli of murder.

And add to the guilter lunacy, now Machiavelli is saying something akin to it was Amanda who'd tried, and failed, to break the door in. Not Raffaele.

Where do they dream up this stuff?

 

[LondonJohn]

Not zero. If it proved he was up until the 5:30 music session that would explain his not waking until 10 am recounting of the evening , which is used as another "lie" he told.

Not at all.

Well yes lowered credibility would at the heart of it. Only an idiot would not see that the late, late night emailing or other computer use would make his story of waking at 10 more credible considering the early morning music session.

Well that's what I had asked about and no one seems to know if he was email using the cloud or an email program such as Outlook.

Regardless it is odd that he would mention something in his book of this nature that he can't prove.

I don't think you're necessarily getting the point I'm trying to make here.

Here's the point: outside of the time period 9pm to midnight (maximum), it's almost immaterial what Knox and Sollecito claim to be doing and/or where they were. After all, it's perfectly POSSIBLE that Knox or Sollecito could have murdered Meredith at 10pm or 11.30pm, yet been (e.g.) playing online games with friends or chatting on msn at 00.30. D'ya see?

The ONLY thing that would be affected by any sort of disproof of what Knox/Sollecito claimed to be doing outside of 9pm-midnight would be their general credibilty, plus the additional question of why they might feel the need to lie about what they were doing outside of 9pm-midnight. But that does NOT constitute proof of murder.

Incidentally, it's a different situation when the prosecution say that the suspects were doing something related to the murder at a certain time outside the murder window, which the suspects deny. This is the case with Knox's alleged trip to the Conad store the next morning. Where there is a contradictory version of events - where the prosecution's version differs from the defendant's version and the prosecution's version points of evidence of guilt - then proof or otherwise of the defendant's version obviously becomes more important (or, strictly speaking, proof of the prosecution's version becomes important).

But that's not the case with Sollecito's claims as to what he was doing in the small hours of the night on 1st/2ndnovember 2007. That also applies to the "listening to music" stuff from later on that night. Knox and Sollecito could have either done these things or not done these things, and it wouldn't make a jot of difference as to whether or not they could have committed the murder. In short, they are not attempts to construct alibis (or false alibis).

 

[acbytesla]

This is the issue (the one highlighted) that folk are missing, meaning the folk who are going on and on and on about this. I agree, the issue of e-mails in the middle of the night contributes nothing, positive or negative, to the salient issues as brought by the prosecution to court... in Sept 2013 to Jan 2014.

This is not about being credible or non-credible, really, this is about winning. Unfortunately.

So what Sollecito has to focus on is how the ISC set up this de novo appeals trial, and how Crini is prosecuting it, with a best guess as to what is going to be determinative for Nencini.

I will not make a prediction here, as my own predictions are very poor indicators of what will actually happen.

But between Aviello basically saying what he said years ago, with the RIS Carabinieri basically confirming Conti and Vecchiotti that Stefanoni's results were pure fiction, and with Crini saying:

- the kitchen knife, now lost because of DNA, is now suddenly a match for the bedsheet outline - that the motive the ISC wanted reexamined, the sex-game gone wrong, is now in the toilet (literally!)​

Here is where, I think if I'm the judge, I'm kicking the prosecution in the teeth. You don't have to be an expert on a complex issue like DNA, you just have to examine the outline of the bedsheet stain and the knife and you end up thinking, how dare they suggest this.

And the toilet theory seriously insults everyone's intelligence.

I have no idea how this court will rule. I was convinced that the ISC would uphold the acquittal, so I'm done speculating. The weird part of this is that this case has become in some Italians minds an attack on their sovereignty. Yet, the idea that their judiciary maybe seriously considering ruling for conviction will most like be more embarrassing to the sovereignty of Italy as the ECHR is not likely to rule against Amanda and Raffaele which would be even more damaging to their sovereignty.

I remember thinking occasionally before the ISC ruling that it would actually be more interesting if the court ruled against Amanda and Raffaele so this soap opera would continue. I tempted fate. So no more. For Amanda and Raffaele's sake, I'm hoping this thing ends and they are acquitted again. I'd like to say I can't imagine the ISC overruling another acquittal, but given the crazies on that court, who's to say?

 

[GreyFox]

I seem to recall that while in prison Raf said there was proof from the mouse on his computer that would be able to prove usage during those hours of the crime. Or was this part of what the defense asked to review (computer evidence) and the Judge denied it ?

 

[Poppy1016]

Here is where, I think if I'm the judge, I'm kicking the prosecution in the teeth. You don't have to be an expert on a complex issue like DNA, you just have to examine the outline of the bedsheet stain and the knife and you end up thinking, how dare they suggest this.

And the toilet theory seriously insults everyone's intelligence.

I have no idea how this court will rule. I was convinced that the ISC would uphold the acquittal, so I'm done speculating. The weird part of this is that this case has become in some Italians minds an attack on their sovereignty. Yet, the idea that their judiciary maybe seriously considering ruling for conviction will most like be more embarrassing to the sovereignty of Italy as the ECHR is not likely to rule against Amanda and Raffaele which would be even more damaging to their sovereignty.

I remember thinking occasionally before the ISC ruling that it would actually be more interesting if the court ruled against Amanda and Raffaele so this soap opera would continue. I tempted fate. So no more. For Amanda and Raffaele's sake, I'm hoping this thing ends and they are acquitted again. I'd like to say I can't imagine the ISC overruling another acquittal, but given the crazies on that court, who's to say?

It is clear to anyone paying attention, that this trial should result in total Acquittal. I just don't see how an acquittal is possible with the SC directive.

 

[acbytesla]

It is clear to anyone paying attention, that this trial should result in total Acquittal. I just don't see how an acquittal is possible with the SC directive.

It really depends on how independent the Florence court is. I don't know the structure of the judiciary in Italy. Are they beholding to the higher court? Or can do what they want without any ramifications? In the US, Federal court judges are appointed by the President, but judges once appointed are very independent. In state courts they are often elected, but not always.

So? where does that leave us? But it is possible that Nancinni could care less what the ISC had to say.

 

[Machiavelli]

Gosh, I miss Machiavelli. He is not nearly as dogmatic as some other PGP posters who have been posting here recently.

Maybe Machiavelli is busy helping Mignini's legal team prepare for the January 15 dismissal of the case against Mignini's.

Thank you.
I owe you answers. Unfortunately interesting topics take longer time and I don't have much.

I recall the latter one, I think about why I look like a prosecutions' advocate...

 

[Machiavelli]

The only person in the universe who wanted that door broken down was Filomena, and then only when she learned that Meredith was without her phones. To suspect RS and/or AK on that point is the equivalent to suspecting Battistelli of murder.

And add to the guilter lunacy, now Machiavelli is saying something akin to it was Amanda who'd tried, and failed, to break the door in. Not Raffaele.

Where do they dream up this stuff?

Amy Frost testified that, not Machiavelli (myself).
Amanda Knox told Amy Frost she had attempted to break down the door.

Testimonies also reveal that it is incorrect to state that Filomena was the only person in the universe who wanted that door broken down. This is absolutely false (and I find this kind of twistings also slightly offensive to Filomena). Marco Zaroli said he became maybe worried even more than Filomena, and he also declared the postal police officers agreed to break down the door as well.
The fact is that Filomena knew that the locked door was not normal; she knew that wnat Amanda said - that Meredith would normally lock her door - was false.

 

[Machiavelli]

When Machiavelli first posted on JREF he gave what amounts to a full biography. Physics, literature and theatre.

He certainly now does not want to correct his claim that Jan 15 is not Mignini's trial for abuse of office.

I just hope that when they iinterrogated Mignini about this they remembered to video tape it and that he was not denied a lawyer.

Nobody ever interrogated Mignini, nor requested to do so.
Obviously the Jan 15 hearing is a preliminary hearing and not a trial. There will be no tiral. There will be a dropping of charges. The only question is on what legal ground: what formula will they chose for that.

 

[acbytesla]

Amy Frost testified that, not Machiavelli (myself).
Amanda Knox told Amy Frost she had attempted to break down the door.

Testimonies also reveal that it is incorrect to state that Filomena was the only person in the universe who wanted that door broken down. This is absolutely false (and I find this kind of twistings also slightly offensive to Filomena). Marco Zaroli said he became maybe worried even more than Filomena, and he also declared the postal police officers agreed to break down the door as well.
The fact is that Filomena knew that the locked door was not normal; she knew that wnat Amanda said - that Meredith would normally lock her door - was false.

One, none of this matters

And two, just because Filomena had a different opinion about whether or not Meredith locked her door or not does not mean that Amanda's opinion is false or a lie. This is a matter of opinion that is unprovable Amanda had been living in the house for 42 days, Meredith for two months. It is distinctly possible, that both were right as far as each knew. How do you know if a door is locked if it is shut and you haven't tested it? And given that Amanda's room was next to Meredith, she might have or thought she heard Meredith locking her door on occasion where Filomena was unaware.

If Amanda wasn't a suspect and she said that Meredith locked her door often and Filomena said she didn't, would anyone think that either was lying? No, we would just say that they had a different perception of their roommates habits.

It is proof of nothing.

 

[acbytesla]

Nobody ever interrogated Mignini, nor requested to do so.
Obviously the Jan 15 hearing is a preliminary hearing and not a trial. There will be no tiral. There will be a dropping of charges. The only question is on what legal ground: what formula will they chose for that.

Won't it be something, when they do a perp walk with Mignini. I can't wait to see that fat disgusting tub of goo in manacles for all the damage that he did to all these people in the MOF and the Kercher trial. I hope they put him in the cell that Raffale was in. But he's lucky. He's fat and ugly, so it's unlikely that he'll become some guy's bitch.

But I sure wish he would have to endure that. If anyone deserves it, it's Mignini.