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

[Machiavelli]

Welcome back, Machiavelli.

Can you verify you simply were misled about Jan 15 being Mignini's trial?

I have already spoken, giving rather precise information about this.

The Jan 15 is obviously a preliminary hearing - an elementary knowledge of procedure should be enough for knowing that it cannot be the beginning of a trial (a trial requires an indictment, and Mignini is not indicted).

Also, some basic knowledge of the case would be sufficient to understand that the only legal option would be a prosecioglimento, dropping of charges. That could be a technical drpping of charges, but Mignini and Giuttari are hoping for a dropping of charges on the merit.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's good to point out that Mignini has sued a relatively small number of people if you compare him with the average Italian citizen.

I can't believe you said this.

It's not correct to say that legally Mignini had no choice but sue Sfarzo. But I mean that politically, as a public figure, he basically hae no choice but to respond legally to deligitimization campaigns.

This is quite the reversal for you.

But the defamation laws are not designed to protect public figures: they are designed to protect common citizens.

I point out that Hellmann and Vecchiotti have the right to attempt prosecute me under Italian law (this does not go for H & V alone, any citizen has the right to sue anyone), but H&V don't have any interest in waging a legal war against me. That would be a very stupid mistake on their part.I am not shielded by the American flag at all. Instad I feel shielded by the inherent risk that these people would take if they decide to sue me. They would risk to lose much more than me by taking that move.

And subsitute "Mignini" for H&V, and "West Seattle Herald," "Curt Knox and Edda Mellas", "Amanda Knox," "Frank Sfarzo" for you, and you finally understand the reasoning why it was simply stupid as a tactical mistake for Mignini to have sued everyone in arms' reach of him and his silly vendettas and theories.

Are you sure this is Machiavelli?

 

[Bill Williams]

I have already spoken, giving rather precise information about this.

The Jan 15 is obviously a preliminary hearing - an elementary knowledge of procedure should be enough for knowing that it cannot be the beginning of a trial (a trial requires an indictment, and Mignini is not indicted).

Also, some basic knowledge of the case would be sufficient to understand that the only legal option would be a prosecioglimento, dropping of charges. That could be a technical drpping of charges, but Mignini and Giuttari are hoping for a dropping of charges on the merit.

It would be nice if you provided some information why this is "obvious." Oggi has reported that it is the trial.

You also did not say much about Mignini's disappointing performance at the preliminary on Dec 6th.

 

[Bill Williams]

I point out that Hellmann and Vecchiotti have the right to attempt prosecute me under Italian law (this does not go for H & V alone, any citizen has the right to sue anyone), but H&V don't have any interest in waging a legal war against me. That would be a very stupid mistake on their part.
I am not shielded by the American flag at all. Instad I feel shielded by the inherent risk that these people would take if they decide to sue me. They would risk to lose much more than me by taking that move.

Why do you continue to defame them? I mean, for pity's sake even you admit they have a case against you!

And as someone who admits to being a party to the dispute, you are in no position to give them advice as to what they should be doing. To some eyes it may look like you're actually trying to convince them not to; the issue isn't whether YOU, Machiavelli, think it would be a stupid mistake on their part - the issue is is THEY would think it was a stupid mistake.

You seem to enjoy risking your personal liberty on a few forum postings, where even you admit you are criminally defaming them. What's the matter with you?

 

[Bill Williams]

I have already spoken, giving rather precise information about this.
The Jan 15 is obviously a preliminary hearing - an elementary knowledge of procedure should be enough for knowing that it cannot be the beginning of a trial (a trial requires an indictment, and Mignini is not indicted).

Also, some basic knowledge of the case would be sufficient to understand that the only legal option would be a prosecioglimento, dropping of charges. That could be a technical drpping of charges, but Mignini and Giuttari are hoping for a dropping of charges on the merit.

You've given no information at all. You've made an assertion. Third parties reading the thread between you and me are no closer to knowing the truth about the Jan 15th trial. On the one side there is the Oggi article - on the other is you giving "precise" information; which is another way of saying you managed some keystrokes on a computer somewhere....

 

[Dan O.]

1. a preliminary note: actually it’s not that simple. I have this speculation – I acknowledge that this point contains a persona speculation – but that is: I think that, had the SC validated the Hellmann verdict, they would not have validated the Guede appeal.

Retro causality never is that simple. Is Machiavelli aware that the final validation of Rudy Guede's conviction happend in December 2010 while the Hellmann trial only started weeks earlier and had a whole year to go.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Guede-serve-16-years-final-appeal-fails.html

 

[acbytesla]

This is the first case I've ever encountered where the lack of glass on the exterior of the structure is proof of staging. In every other case the perp screwed up by breaking the glass from the inside (forcing the glass to the outside) making it obvious to investigators the scene was staged.

Isn't that interesting. Italy is a country where they don't let evidence get in the way of a conviction.

 

[davefoc]

I am a little confused by the use of the word, sue, above. Did Mignini sue people or did he charge them with a crime or both?

 

[Machiavelli]

Retro causality never is that simple. Is Machiavelli aware that the final validation of Rudy Guede's conviction happend in December 2010 while the Hellmann trial only started weeks earlier and had a whole year to go.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Guede-serve-16-years-final-appeal-fails.html

It is something I already said in a further point, when you read the whole post.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why do you continue to defame them? I mean, for pity's sake even you admit they have a case against you!

And as someone who admits to being a party to the dispute, you are in no position to give them advice as to what they should be doing. To some eyes it may look like you're actually trying to convince them not to; the issue isn't whether YOU, Machiavelli, think it would be a stupid mistake on their part - the issue is is THEY would think it was a stupid mistake.

You seem to enjoy risking your personal liberty on a few forum postings, where even you admit you are criminally defaming them. What's the matter with you?

My God Bill, just don’t start again with your old technique, attempting to attribute things that people didn’t say. Not on your first post, again.
No. Bill, I did not say that Hellmann and Vecchiotti have a case against me.
I repeat it: I never "admitted" that Hellmann or Vecchiotti have "a case against me".
I never said anything like that. I said instead, that they have the right to attempt to prosecute me under Italian law; which is a very different thing.

I also added a clause attempting to specify what I mean, saying that anyone has the right to attempt prosecute anyone in Italy, whenever they even just subjectively think they could have a case, in their minds. People don’t need to actually have a case in order to sue someone. I have the right to attempt prosecute Bill Williams as much as Hellmann and Vecchiotti have an attempt to prosecute me.
This is very different from saying "they have a case against me".
Is that clear?

Now, then you start talking about me, giving me suggestions as for legal strategies while I was answering to post Mary H wrote false statements about me; so you step into this to give legal suggestions to me?
Really, how do you dare give me legal suggestions about what I should talk about and what I should say?
And what is your knowledge in order to “qualify” what I say as “defamation” (while people on this forums instead make wild assertions about Stefanoni, Mignini etc.).
You should not talk about my personal choices, what I should or should not do - nor you have the competence to legally qualify or define what I do – nor you should attempt attempt to discuss with me about what my personal interest and choices. You just can’t help from resorting back to poster-centred topics. I suggest you talk about the discussion subjects instead.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've given no information at all. You've made an assertion. Third parties reading the thread between you and me are no closer to knowing the truth about the Jan 15th trial. On the one side there is the Oggi article - on the other is you giving "precise" information; which is another way of saying you managed some keystrokes on a computer somewhere....

Yes it’s another way of saying I was striking keys on a keyboard. Because this is what communicating. The text resulting from my striking was a clear unequivocal statement reporting some facts.
A clear unequivocal assertion is called precise information.
You may want believe it or not, but that’s another problem. The information is rather precise.

The 15 Jan hearing is a preliminary hearing, not a trial. (1s piece of precise information)
The hearing *cannot* be the beginning of a trial because, in order to have a trial, you need an indictment. You say it would be niche to understand why it is obvious; but in fact you only need to understand the basics of legal procedure. It is obvious that it can’t be a trial because there is no indictment; and it is obvious there is no indiectment since in order to have an indictment on these charges, in Italy, you need judge to formulize it.
And you may perfectly know that no legitimate judge has ever seen the Mignini-Giuttari case up to now. This judge in Turin is the first court that ever looks into the merit of the case, therefore it can only be a prelimiary hearing (moreover, it is at the GIP/GUP office) (2nd piece of precise information, which I should not offer, because it should be obvious)
The preliminary hearing will conclude with a dropping of charges, this is also obvious if you read the charges (3rd piece of information).

I point out again that the Jan 15 hearing takes place before the GIP/GUP office at the Turin house of Justice, and that office only schedules preliminary hearings.
A GUP (preliminary judge) would perform a trial only if the defendants asks him, directly, for a short track option. But this cannot happen prior to the hearing.

It’s up to you whether to believe my information or not.
Either you believe my clear and precise information, or you decide to believe to your own interpretation of the wordings in an article written by Giangavino Sulas & friends. Now believe what you want, just don’t ask me to waste my time repeating the same thing.

Ps:
Why you call the Dec 6th hearing “disappointing” ? Disappointing to whom? Btw Mignini did not attend that hearing at all.

Ps2:
Mario Spezi will have his own preliminary hearing on Apr. 8. 2014. But that one was ordered by the Cassazione, not requested by the defendant, and that one a serious case with actual evidence; you can bet that one will not end with a dropping of charges.

 

[Bill Williams]

My God Bill, just don’t start again with your old technique, attempting to attribute things that people didn’t say. Not on your first post, again.
No. Bill, I did not say that Hellmann and Vecchiotti have a case against me.
I repeat it: I never "admitted" that Hellmann or Vecchiotti have "a case against me".
I never said anything like that. I said instead, that they have the right to attempt to prosecute me under Italian law; which is a very different thing.

I also added a clause attempting to specify what I mean, saying that anyone has the right to attempt prosecute anyone in Italy, whenever they even just subjectively think they could have a case, in their minds. People don’t need to actually have a case in order to sue someone. I have the right to attempt prosecute Bill Williams as much as Hellmann and Vecchiotti have an attempt to prosecute me.
This is very different from saying "they have a case against me".
Is that clear?

Now, then you start talking about me, giving me suggestions as for legal strategies while I was answering to post Mary H wrote false statements about me; so you step into this to give legal suggestions to me?
Really, how do you dare give me legal suggestions about what I should talk about and what I should say?
And what is your knowledge in order to “qualify” what I say as “defamation” (while people on this forums instead make wild assertions about Stefanoni, Mignini etc.).
You should not talk about my personal choices, what I should or should not do - nor you have the competence to legally qualify or define what I do – nor you should attempt attempt to discuss with me about what my personal interest and choices. You just can’t help from resorting back to poster-centred topics. I suggest you talk about the discussion subjects instead.

This is dietrology, Machiavelli. You say things with the sole purpose of being able to say you never said what you said.

Good for you. You admit that they have a case against you, enough to initiate proceedings, then you claim you never said that.

Be that as it may, if your prediction is correct and they initiate proceedings against you, then you'll be arguing all this in front of an Italian judge. So it is you are right, it's not what I say that's important - it's what the judge will say about this dietrology.

I still remain agog that you'd want to say all this in a public forum. But that's your call.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am a little confused by the use of the word, sue, above. Did Mignini sue people or did he charge them with a crime or both?

About these people, what Mignini did was to submit a querela, a complaint for having suffered a criminal offence (criminal defamation). Something that posters here would translate as filing a criminal lawsuit.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes it’s another way of saying I was striking keys on a keyboard. Because this is what communicating. The text resulting from my striking was a clear unequivocal statement reporting some facts.
A clear unequivocal assertion is called precise information.
You may want believe it or not, but that’s another problem. The information is rather precise.

The 15 Jan hearing is a preliminary hearing, not a trial. (1s piece of precise information)
The hearing *cannot* be the beginning of a trial because, in order to have a trial, you need an indictment. You say it would be niche to understand why it is obvious; but in fact you only need to understand the basics of legal procedure. It is obvious that it can’t be a trial because there is no indictment; and it is obvious there is no indiectment since in order to have an indictment on these charges, in Italy, you need judge to formulize it.
And you may perfectly know that no legitimate judge has ever seen the Mignini-Giuttari case up to now. This judge in Turin is the first court that ever looks into the merit of the case, therefore it can only be a prelimiary hearing (moreover, it is at the GIP/GUP office) (2nd piece of precise information, which I should not offer, because it should be obvious)
The preliminary hearing will conclude with a dropping of charges, this is also obvious if you read the charges (3rd piece of information).

I point out again that the Jan 15 hearing takes place before the GIP/GUP office at the Turin house of Justice, and that office only schedules preliminary hearings.
A GUP (preliminary judge) would perform a trial only if the defendants asks him, directly, for a short track option. But this cannot happen prior to the hearing.

It’s up to you whether to believe my information or not.
Either you believe my clear and precise information, or you decide to believe to your own interpretation of the wordings in an article written by Giangavino Sulas & friends. Now believe what you want, just don’t ask me to waste my time repeating the same thing.

Ps:
Why you call the Dec 6th hearing “disappointing” ? Disappointing to whom? Btw Mignini did not attend that hearing at all.

Ps2:
Mario Spezi will have his own preliminary hearing on Apr. 8. 2014. But that one was ordered by the Cassazione, not requested by the defendant, and that one a serious case with actual evidence; you can bet that one will not end with a dropping of charges.

Thank you for your information.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is dietrology, Machiavelli. You say things with the sole purpose of being able to say you never said what you said.

Good for you. You admit that they have a case against you, enough to initiate proceedings, then you claim you never said that.
(...)

Stop it. Quit your lies attempting to make up what people said.
Stop attempting to put your own words into other people's mouth.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's good to point out that Mignini has sued a relatively small number of people if you compare him with the average Italian citizen.

Mignini filed criminal defamation complainst agaist a very small number of people, compared to the number of people against which he could drag into court winning the lawsuit.

Normal average citizens file defamation lawsuits after suffering a single defamation episode on a smaller scale, maybe just for a single newspaper article, or for a leaflet or a tv broadcast.
But I knew a woman (Mrs. Ariosto) who made a living collecting damage awards from media sources who defamed her, after being targeted by a defamation campaign.

 

[Poppy1016]

Those are my thoughts as well. The Perugia investigators seem to have been trained by playing Cluedo and watching crime dramas based on Agatha Christie. All the possible suspects are named in the plot of the story, or have tokens in the game, and the culmination is when Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot gathers everyone involved in the drawing room and explains his/her ice-cold logic, while the 2 police officers wait by the door with the handcuffs to put on the chosen culprit.


That's only because their game of Cluedo and acting out a crime drama ended on 6 November 2007. Everything since has had the purpose of turning the conclusion of the Cluedo/crime drama into reality. They've already had to modify it by swapping Lumumba for Guede, who - horrors - wasn't one of the original Cluedo tokens/Agatha Christie characters.


This is when the similarity with Cluedo and Agatha Christie ends, because it's a phase of the game/drama which doesn't correspond.

Excellent analogy.

 

[moodstream]

This is not sensible. Rudy is claiming an ambition to teach, knowing that this is possible if he consorts with the prosecution to incarcerate innocent people, people he knows are innocent, for the duration of their procreative lives.

I am not saying Guede is a good person. I am saying his behavior is strongly effected by his childhood. It seems he is a child born of a one night stand, or perhaps even a paid arrangement. At any rate, there was no love for him from mother or father from conception forward, and my guess is there are underlying biological factors as well. Others have triumphed in situations even worse than his, and he had more than his share of breaks. Still, the psychological damage was there, it was caused by factors he could not control, he was the victim of the irresponsibility of his parents and he did not have the ability to transcend it.

I think we all are perhaps inevitably irresponsible to greater and lesser degrees, no one is perfect, the context of our irresponsibility is to some extent thrust upon us from the context of our lives, if it is not biological. Moralty is the process of coming to terms with this, and leaving the planet a better place than we found it.

Within this broader context of the nature of humanity, Guede is just another person. He is acting as a human animal within the boundaries of the human condition. He is a statistical fact of Darwinian evolution in a meaningless world of biological and chemical interaction. He is not taking on the moral challenge to transcend the randomness of his place in the universe.

The zen question for me is, when I blame him for the murder of Ms Kercher, which I do, am I saying something about Guede, like - he's the bad one, or am I trying to abrogate my own responsibility for making the world a place where murders like this don't happen? Are we completely responsible for our own actions, or, does responsibility also lie in the community?

 

[andreajo]

Mignini filed criminal defamation complainst agaist a very small number of people, compared to the number of people against which he could drag into court winning the lawsuit.

Normal average citizens file defamation lawsuits after suffering a single defamation episode on a smaller scale, maybe just for a single newspaper article, or for a leaflet or a tv broadcast.
But I knew a woman (Mrs. Ariosto) who made a living collecting damage awards from media sources who defamed her, after being targeted by a defamation campaign.

Do you like the system where defamation is a criminal rather than a civil offense? If there is no cost to a person bringing an action, do some people overuse the system?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
By the way, I forgot to include in my previous post one of the more risible judicial "explanations" of "evidence" pointing to a clean-up: Massei and others "reasoned" that since there was a bloody partial foot print on the bathmat, and since there was not a "corresponding" trail of bloody footprints between Meredith's room and the bathmat, this therefore "proved" that these "intermediate" foptprints must have been extant at one time and subsequently wiped away!!

Of course, what this stellar "reasoning" abjectly fails to take into account is the possibility that the blood on the bathmat was not transported into the bathroom on the sole of that foot, but that it was instead transported there on the arms or clothing of the killer (Guede), then washed down onto a flat surface (the shower pan or possibly the bidet) whereupon the killer (Guede) placed his foot into it and stepped onto the bathmat. The fact that it is quite obviously a print made in heavily-diluted blood might have been a clue, you might have thought. But no. Not for the extraordinary judicial mind of Massei (and others). But then again, this is from the judge who brought you that other stunning piece of logic and reasoning: why would Capezzali have reported hearing a bloodcurdling scream of death unless she had in reality heard such a thing?

I think the reasoning of Massei is logically correct.
And I think the objection LJ offers doesn't stand, it's not consistent, especially when you look at the physical findings.