Were Amanda and Rafaele framed, yes or no? If yes, then when do you believe the conscious effort at framing just these two defendants began?
Following up on this question and responses so far, I count 4 distinct positions or 'Schools of Thought', and I've tried to group JREF responders (by their comment #s) into the different camps as best I can. Sorry if I got anyone wrong.
4 Schools of Thought:
First I'll try to lay out the four positions. The I'll try to summarize the points of difference, with a quick checklist of corresponding questions. (The article published yesterday on Ground Report by Karen Pruett is also focused on these issues, and probably most of the sources I relied on, and more, so it's a good read).
1. GRINDER (#4564) - No Intentional Framing of AK & RS, just confirmation bias run amok. Italians think differently. When we think "proof of GUILT beyond a reasonable doubt", The Italians think, and only require for conviction, "proof of COMPATIBILITY WITH GUILT, beyond a reasonable doubt". (No prior Perugia police relationship with Guede, may I infer?) (also supported by; Planigale (#4577), Bill Williams (#4579 - unsure on framing), AcbyTesla (#4581 - silent on framing issue at least here)).
2. RANDYN (#4572) - Didn't start out as framing, but framing is obvious, AND, it's par for the course with Italian judicial proceedings. Prosecutors frame, and judges approve it. "Italian judiciary = Italian mafia". (No prior Perugia police relationship with Guede - is implied if it didn't start out as framing and police had no agenda at the outset).
3. SAMSON (#4573) - Yes to framing, but not right away - includes Mignini experiencing COGNITIVE DISSONANCE to justify framing. No conspiracy over Guede (presumably means no prior relationship with Perugia police and Guede). Mignini thought he'd solved crime at Nov 6 press conference, then COGNITIVE DISSONANCE takes over. Framing occurred, but not full on until the finding of the bra clasp after 6 weeks. Leans towards believing bra clasp evidence was planted, but allows possibility of merely contamination. (also supported by MARY H (#4576) - especially in regard to COGNITIVE DISSONANCE in Mignini.)
4. CJ72 (#4567) - Framing from day 1, Perugia police protecting Guede, Napoleoni or Zugarini recognizing Guede's break-in style. Perugia police AND ALL CONVICTING JUDGES fully complicit in intentional conviction of innocents AK & RS, and protecting Mignini and Perugia police by 'protecting' Guede through inclusion of multiple attacker theory, and calumnia theory. (I'm adding here that I agree with RANDYN on COGNITIVE DISSONANCE in Mignini, and I'll elaborate further). (I'm counting Karen Pruett in this camp, from her article on ground report).
POINTS OF DIFFERENTIATION AMONG THE 4 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT:
1. Guede relationship to Perugia Police prior to Kercher killing?
2. Intentional Framing of AK & RS? if yes, when did it start?
3. Integrity of Perugia and Italian police in this case, and in general?
4. Integrity of Italian judges in this case, and in general?
(By copy pasting just the above, anyone can respond with as short or long a post with their own explanations. Mine below, I guess is turning out a bit longer than I'd hoped, but I wanted to get it out there for comment. So please, dig in and have at it.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS: (I'm arguing my position, CJ72, addressing others where we diverge).
1. Perugia Police Prior Relationship to Guede, (and Intentional framing from Day 1). -
I accept Steve Moore's analysis that Guede must already have been working or cooperating in some capacity with the Perugia police at the time he was released by the Milan police, or the Milan police releasing Guede cannot be explained.
After having been apprehended at the break-in of a Nursery school in Milan. Guede was released only after a phone call to Perugian authorities. Guede had in his possession a laptop and phone from the Perugian Lawyers office that had experienced a break-in identical in method to the Kercher killing - Rock through the window, grate assisted second story climb-up, neatly placed piles of broken glass inside, a mess of the occupants belongings, and makes himself at home as though recreating a 'fantasy home life' (per N. Burleigh). Guede also had a large kitchen knife stolen from the nursery School kitchen, and had prepared little bowls of pasta that he placed around the nursery ( per N.Burleigh). Differing from Karen Pruett's article on Ground Report yesterday, my understanding is police retained the items Gude had stolen (also includes a gold woman's watch suspected of being taken from another Perugian robbery earlier that same month. Guede actually revisited the law office on Oct 29, 2007 to try to explain how he had items stolen 2 weeks earlier from their office, and was turned away. (SEE AMANDA's blog under MeredithKercherMurder/People/PaoloBrocchi (lawyer from law office transcript on break-in; includes description of door covered with metal grating, right under the window of entry, and could be used to climb up to that window).
Additionally, Guede's possession of the two items stolen from the law office in Perugia, plus the phone call from Milan police to Perugian police, means the Perugian Police must have been aware that Guede was responsible for the break-in to the Perugian law office, and therefore presumably, the break-in method he had used. (Again, SEE Amanda's blog on Paolo Brocchi, the break-in method is identical).
2. Intentional framing of AK & RS (from day 1) - Initial recognition of Guede's break-in style by Napoleoni and/or Zugarini, Perugia Police's first thought and priority is; "ANYONE BUT GUEDE". (They may or may not necessarily know it's Guede at this point, but they do at least suspect it may be Guede, because they helped get Guede released from Milan police 5 days earlier, and know he did the Perugia law office break-in, with the identical break-in style).
ANYONE BUT GUEDE!!
I'm walking back a touch on this. My belief is that Napoleoni or Zugarini recognized Guede's break-in style, and informed Mignini right away. So their initial attitude was; "ANYONE BUT GUEDE, therefore the break-in must be staged". (I believe Andrea Vogt's deceptive documentary interviews Mignini on this point, and he lays out the reason they "knew immediately the break-in was staged". Doesn't mean Mignini's being truthful that they actually thought this at that time, he could be back-dating to make themselves look good. But they all said the same thing, and I don't think their competent enough to coordinate their versions, I believe Napoleoni steered the ship at this, immediately on arrival on Day 1).
INVESTIGATION DESIGNED TO BROADEN POOL OF SUSPECTS, NOT NARROW TO ACTUAL CULPRIT
The 'anyone but Guede', hence the break-in is staged', is followed by a thoroughly corrupt investigation, as standard operating procedure. The standard operation procedure is to suspect everyone, test evidence in a way that leaves as open as possible the maximum pool of suspects (for example, delay testing corpse temperature to broaden the TOD, thus requiring a larger alibi from suspects). Then target the easiest people least able to defend themselves, and convict by whatever means necessary; framing, planting, withholding, suppressing, tramp witnesses, bogus science, etc, all the tools of the trade.
THE INTERROGATION WAS PLANNED FROM DAY 1
IMO - Italian police corruption is routine. Innocent defendants are routinely framed. AK & RS were singled out for railroading immediately because they were there and without lawyers unlike everyone else, but it wasn't personal, they just needed bodies to railroad to conviction, ideally without Guede, but along with Guede if necessary. (See Karen Pruett's article detailing the planned interrogation, Pruett relying on "The Forgotten Suspect" by Moore, Douglas, Preston, etc. The fact that a planned interrogation program occurred, and required planning, shows the intent to extract statements was intentional. The Perugian and Rome police may have believed their interrogation techniques produce valid confessions, and that they do in fact have amazing abilities for psychological investigations in the absence of evidence.
As crazy as that sounds, I believe they believe it. But the drive here, is to first and foremost to convict. Once they have a confession in hand, they can't walk it back without admitting fault over how it was obtained and undermining their own credibility. Once they have the signed statement from AK & RS, the prosecution is locked on course to convict at all cost, by any means necessary).
MIGNINI AND COGNITIVE DISSONANCE - The character of Dr Mignini is central to this case. How nuts is he? Does he really believe his own stories? To me, understanding Mignini is the key to it all.
Steve Moore has pointed out, in an interview on LIP TV (youtube) with JimClemente and host Allison Hope-Weiner, that Mignini lied at the famous press conference about there being a "bleach clean-up" at the cottage, when he knew for a fact that there was no bleach clean-up. So Mignini is consciously framing AK & RS with false evidence on Nov 6, 2007. That doesn't mean he knows they are innocent, he still may believe they're guilty, and just using dirty tricks to tip the scales of public opinion, hence jury opinion, hence justice. But he is actively framing them at this point.
Some Background on Mignini -
Mignini is a special kind of character. Devoutly religious, grew up in Perugia. Got involved in the Monster of Florence case after receiving correspondence from an TV psychic Gabriella Carlizzi, who specialty was modern day satanic cults, descending from a medieval order of masons, the knights of templar, and a group called, "the order of the red rose'. (See Monster of Florence, Preston/Spezi). (Carlizzi also contacted Mignini in this case, and debatably predicted something like it in her blog on Oct 31, 2007 - no kidding - as per the afterword in MOF/Preston/Spezi).
The Monster of Florence case went on for decades with 16 unsolved murders, according to an FBI profile, committed by a lone predator. Various prosecution teams came and went. Innocent people were certainly convicted, with a very high likelihood in some case of planted evidence, and an absolute certainty of bogus tramp witnesses, used for false convictions later on. There were two tracks to the case; the 'sardinian trail' and likely true lone killer version; versus the satanic cult angle with multiple killers, satanic orgies, dark masses, and fetish use of surgically excised female body parts. Earlier investigators fought over the two versions, with the 'cult' school winning out. The investigators who backed the 'cult school' eventually received important career promotions for their work on the case.
Eventually a reprehensible man (domestically violent, and rapist of his daughters), Pacciano was originally falsely convicted. AT Pacciano's appeal, the prosecutor to the case argued that he was innocent (MOF - preston/spezi). The appeal appeared to be heading for acquittal, and the day before, two new "accomplices were indicted by the then investigator Guittiari. (It was Guttiari's association with Mignini that would result in criminal charges against both MIgini and Guitiarri, and conviction at the lower level with sentences of 14 and 16 months I believe, ultimately shelved for the moment, over jurisdictional issues and the case may be re-filed in Turin at some point).
The acquittal of Pacciano in the MOF case was as total and complete as the Hellman acquittal of AK and RS. In both cases there was absolutely no evidence, and the cases the prosecutors put forward were plainly absurd. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation similalrly reversed the Pacciano conviction, and Pacciano died within days his re-trial was supposed to begin.
To my mind, the ISC's behavior in reversing the Pacciani acquittal, is the most directly comparable case to the ISC's reversal of the AK/RS Hellman acquittal. Solving the MOF case after decades was a huge face saver to the Italian police and judicary, undoing those convictions was enough to get the ISC to reverse the acquittal, even though it was an obvious miscarriage of justice. The only advantage AK and RS have over Pacciani, is that they are undeniably, indisputably, the kindest, gentlest, most decent of people you could ever hope to run into. Pacciani belonged in jail, AK and RS obviously do not, at least to most normal, decent people.
That is the only reason I can see the ISC not accepting Nencini. Widespread Public Support of good people wrongly convicted is what possibly can tip the scales. That's why Mignini needed to poison the atmosphere with false stories and character assassination in the press. Mignini affects the press, the press affects the public, the public affects the judges. So in the end, its all about what the public believes, in order to put pressure on the judges so they don't issue verdicts that make them appear ridiculous - IN THE EYES OF ITALIANS. La Bella Figura. The only hope is to provide the ISC with the alternative of looking even worse.
Back to the case - On day 1 -
Mignini was one of 3 prosecutors on rotation (2 had been added after Mignini's problems with the MOF case). Whether Mignini grabbed the case, or simply came up in the rotation is a question I have. (Burleigh and I think also Candace Dempsey think MIgnini go the case by random. I don't accept this position, not without credible documentation.
In short, and to summarize; I believe Mignini is legitimately a madman. He is the genuine article. He adopts crime theories from the psychic Gabriella Carlizzi, who claims to be getting her inside information from a dead priest, a Vatican exorcist named I think Father Bernardo. Mignini relied on Carlizzi's theories in his getting involved in the MOF case over the Dr Narducci allegations (See MOF Preston/Spezi), and also in later accusing Spezi and jailing him as the suspected 'Monster of Florence' himself.
Mignini spun a fantastic story of conspiracy involving 21 defendants in the MOF case, which was dismissed by Judge Micheli, the same judge in the AK/RS case. Judge Micheli allowed Mignini to prosecute Amanda and Raf, but he would go along with Mignini's satanic sex conspiracies in this case, which is consistent with his ruliong on this theory in Mignini's MOF case.
Finally, I believe the ISC is protecting Mignini in reversing Hellman, because behind Mignini are the false convictions in the MOF cases, against Pacciani, Vanni and Lotte (see MOF/preston and Spezi). They have to save Mignini, to provide a doorstop against a reexamination of the MOF cases. So the ISC isn't so much protecting Mignini by allowing convictions of AK & RS, as protecting themselves and the perception of the Italian judiciary.
Mignini used this case against AK & RS, to save his own career. But it really is "him or Amanda", and it has been from day 1.
I apologize profusely for the length of this post. I've completely lost track of my outline plan fo rthis post. I'm bleary eyed, I don't know how long I've been typing, a few hours I think. Would love to hear thoughts and feedback. Thanks to all who make it through, or any who give it a try - CJ72
