No assumption, is or may be an assumption in itself
{Highlighting added to quote.}
IMO, your first paragraph doesn't hold. That is (and this may be from my own training to suspend judgment on issues where there is, IMO, insufficient evidence for a conclusion) the framing could have started immediately or with a short delay (of only one or at most 2 days, IMO) and reached the same endpoint. I see the possibility that Guede's handiwork was not identified, but due to Mignini's obsessions, as soon as he arrived on scene, decided Amanda Knox was guilty: a young, attractive American woman, vulnerable due to inexperience, geographically distant family support, limited cultural comprehension (she had been in Italy about 6 weeks), and only a beginning knowledge of Italian; and a murder on Nov. 1, the Day of the Dead, full of ritual significance.
I am not sure about the procedures or motivation for calling in Giobbi. IIUC, Mignini had worked with his predecessor (Guittari[sp?]) on the Narducci witch-hunt. Again, it may be Mignini's obsession with conspiracy and inability or lack of interest in common-place crime that drove this.
CJ72 - ...snip...Try the argument different ways, i.e., Assume they (Nappy & Zuggy) recognized Guede's MO / assume they did not - does taking either logical path change your conclusions? How so?...snip...
Hi Numbers,
I'm with you on the need to be careful about assumptions. But as I suggested in my 2nd paragraph (quoted above), is that rather than make the assumption, try reasoning it out under both scenarios, and see how that affects the argument moving on after that logical branch.
I agree there isn't necessarily an either/or - Bat's conclusions of a staged break-in were innocently/ or falsely and intentionally adopted into Miggy's investigation. There could be shades of grey in a fluid situation, so, more of a continuous scale than a toggle, if you will.
But there was also Carlizzi, with whom, Mignini met within the first few days of his investigation (Spezi/Preston), and who had been sending Mignini faxes about her revelations, even before the murder, if you can believe it (she might have been something of a pre-cog after all - guess if I'm kidding).
What I am saying, is that not making an assumption, is not the same as saying there's no evidence or a need to take a position. For example, the fact that the semen stain wasn't tested, doesn't mean there's no evidence of semen at the crime scene, it means the issue was avoided. Not testing the glass from Filomena's window to see which direction it was broken, doesn't mean there is a reasonable debate over this issue because that evidence wasn't allowed to be tested, it means the prosecution avoided the issue. (perhaps similar to the ECHR notion of an equality of arms being essential to a fair trial?).
So similarly, I think one has to take a position on the whole question of Mignini the Perugian police and GUede, and make some accounting on that point. You may disregard the idea, fine. You may agree with the idea, fine. You may say it played some role, allowing the police and Miggy to hedge their bets, fine? But the issue doesn't 'go away', simply because we choose to look away. Not wanting to draw a firm conclusion doesn't make the issue vanish, its simply reserving judgement for a later time. But then if that's the case, then the outcome is "reserved judgement", not 'this is what happened'.
Just saying you are taking a position, either explicitly, or implicitly, if you are drawing a conclusion on the larger question as to how the meme of a staged break-in became the official theory of the prosecution.
The last issue your raised is for me critically important, and which I have been trying to substantiate. Was Giobbi the replacement for Giuttari in Rome?
Because Giuttari's 'monster squad' GIDES was solely formed to find 'those responsible for the monster of Florence murders', according to Preston/Spezi.
The GIDES unit was disbanded (IIRC) in the summer of 2006, after Spezi was released from prison, and Mignini and Giuttari were held accountable for that embarrassing fiasco of the arrest of Spezi.
Giobbi having a link to GIDES, means Giobbi was likely sympatico to supporting Giuttari's hoax that a satanic sect was responsible for the MOF crimes, which Carlizzi was again pushing on Mignini on Nov 1 2007, and Mignini was also pursuing in the Calamandrei case in Florence - using the same 'algebraic witnesses' Giuttari had dredged up against Vanni and Lotti in obtaining those false convictions (cue the outraged MAch bellowing into the food-fight).
So yes, Giobbi's relationship to Giuttari, GIDES and the Serious Crimes Unit, is all very important from my perspective, in determining whether Giobbi was hell bent of finding a spectacular conspiracy and a new trophy for his wall of shame, before he even left his office in Rome, to head to perugia on day one of the Kercher murder investigation. Then Giobbi's "observations" make sense, instead of making him appear to simply be a blithering idiot.
