Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Katody Matrass]

Just wanted to straighten some another attempt of spinning the facts

The Independent Court Appointed Experts destroyed any credibility of the cops from "scientifica", by pointing out how none of the widely agreed forensic procedures and recommendations where followed. They showed how the procedures the cops failed to follow are not only agreed on by the Interpol and the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, two very competent and well regarded entities but even Missouri State Highway Patrol recommends the same in it's Forensic Evidence Handbook. The experts showed how universally accepted the rules of crime scene inspection are.

It is absolutely false, desperate and dishonest spin to pretend that the independent experts were not basing on univeral standards accepted by international organisations like Interpol and ENFSI, which they quoted, and which in theory should the italian police follow.




Yes, the question of what exactly the standards of the italian police were is rhetorical. When the video presenting extreme unprofessionality of the investigators and their disregard for any procedures, familiar even to a Highway Patrol officer was played in court, it caused gasps of disbelief and outbursts of laughter.

The cops trampled the crime scene in uncontrolled herds, not respecting basic rules like employing shoe covers, changing gloves, or using disposable tools. They gathered DNA with large smearing motions from many surfaces with the same swab, cross-contaminating the samples. The videos of them gift-wrapping the mop handle in a paper found on the crime scene and "walking" it into the blood stained room ended up on youtube. Same with the video of the cops passing around important piece of evidence with dirty gloves, handling it by many individuals only to drop it on the floor. It's there for everyone to watch and shake their heads in disbelief.

Unfortunately the failures in crime scene inspection were just a tip of the iceberg. The fact is that the polizia pseudoscientifica missed and failed to gather most of the important evidence, e.g. many bloody pieces of clothing and had to return after more then a month. The crime scene integrity had been seriously breached in the meantime in an undocumented way by unknown individuals. In fact the rooms were turned upside down, all the things including bloody pieces of evidence and even furniture tossed around in disarray.

The mishandling of the crime scene was one thing, but the main point of the independent report were the inexplicable errors of the prosecution's technician Stefanoni, suggesting either extreme incompetence or foul play.

I'd also note that the independent experts confirmed what was already indicated by many professionals and scientists familiar with the case. The "outside observers" who disagree with the independent report are a tiny extremely biased and over invested group of activists without any credentials. In fact those in the group, who had the credentials, like certain "Greggy", changed mind in favour of innocence and left.

The only scientist who tried (and failed) to criticise the report was Novelli, not only paid by the prosecution but in fact lacking credentials in the field of criminology or forensic DNA. No wonder the Court paid no attention to it and found that the DNA evidence is rubbish, just like the really knowledgeable experts argued all the time.

[Bruce Fisher]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Rose, I always stand in awe at your sharp wit when arguing.
So, surely your request to me for standards was tongue in cheek.

Two suggestions and a personal observation:

1) You probably know that the Boise State Student Newsletter once said in so many words that their own Dr Hampikian was pretty much the prime reason the dna was challenged successfully by Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.
Therefore, may I suggest you direct your request for 'standards' to him.

2) You also probably are well aware that Hellmann's academic 'experts' found necessary to cite the Missouri State Highway Patrol's Handbook in their academic, but somewhat less than impressive bibliography about dna standards.
Therefore, may I suggest that maybe the good Highway Patrol people could also help you.


I did note
1) The experts stated under heated cross examination that "anything is possible" as an exasperated justification for some of their most questionable conclusions.
2) Many outside observers stated that these academic experts proved little other than many, many incarcerated murderers convicted on dna evidence, theoretically now could also be judged not guilty

Therefore, may I observe that I really would not even care to see, much less "love" to see the standards you ask me to provide.

Judge Hellmann must not have found Conti and Vecchiotti's conclusions questionable because his court freed Amanda and Raffaele based on their report.

Conti and Vecchiotti referenced many sources yet you only post up the one that you find to be suspect. Your post does not give an honest summation of their work.

Here's the truth:

On October 3, 2011, Judge Hellmann spoke loud and clear when he declared that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. They had absolutely nothing to do with Meredith Kercher's murder.

In the case of the murder (and the sexual assault, transporting the knife, and theft), Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted "for not having committed the act."

With regard to the charge of staging a burglary, Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted "because the act does not exist." (Hellmann's court ruled that the burglary was not staged)

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Rose, I always stand in awe at your sharp wit when arguing.
So, surely your request to me for standards was tongue in cheek.

Two suggestions and a personal observation:

Nope and how about a cite instead. Just what set of standards did the collection of this evidence meet?

As far as quoting American standards and DNA resources are you aware that <Dr. Stefanoni quoted the FBI in her power-point presentation on the DNA evidence?

[Kaosium]

Umberto Brindani of Oggi, also a lucky recipient of one of Mignini's defamation 'investigations' in Italy has written an article about the aftermath of the case which deserves a read. I found this part intriguing, apparently Amanda wrote to them in prison telling them how much it meant to her, but begging them not to reveal her letter.

Originally Posted by Oggi

Public in a letter to this page only now, the only, that Amanda sent us from prison six months ago, begging us not to spread it at the time. It says, among other things: "Reading your articles about the case is how to catch your breath held. I feel clean again by the cold sweat. " Here, if we have contributed, even in small part, to save the innocent, to have their breath back, well ', let me say that we have done our duty to inform. Newspapers do not always serve only to wrap fish.

He also includes this little bit about potential accomplices of Rudy Guede:

Originally Posted by Oggi

It is true that justice was not done for her, because the accomplice or accomplices of Guede are still unknown and unpunished.

I wonder if that's just an artifact of the police and prosecution being forced to gather 'evidence' of more than one person, and thus twist their 'analysis' to account for more than one attacker. If that isn't where it comes from, I wonder what makes him think that there was definitely more that one attacker, as this is something that Frank Sfarzo has also gone on about as well. Thinking about it the other day, outside Kokomeni, there's others who might not have told all they know and ought to have been a larger focus of the 'investigation:' the boys downstairs. After all, they are the ones who socialized with Rudy, and it might just be that proximity allowed him to ascertain that the cottage was likely to be empty most of the night, with the boys all away, along with Filomena and Laura, and Amanda staying with Raffaele.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

You probably know that the Boise State Student Newsletter once said in so many words that their own Dr Hampikian was pretty much the prime reason the dna was challenged successfully by Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.
Therefore, may I suggest you direct your request for 'standards' to him.

I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Hampikian's writings formed the sole basis of the experts' opinions. If the doctor was part of the defense team, and they, an independent panel, what would motivate them to use his analysis?

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I don't know, in particular I dont know how powerful. But the issues in the Narducci investigation are many. The key thing is that both the buried person and the body found in the lake were in fact killed, and there was no accidental drawning in the lake.

Interesting! how where they killed?

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Bruce Fisher

On October 3, 2011, Judge Hellmann spoke loud and clear when he declared that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. They had absolutely nothing to do with Meredith Kercher's murder.

In the case of the murder (and the sexual assault, transporting the knife, and theft), Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted "for not having committed the act."

With regard to the charge of staging a burglary, Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted "because the act does not exist." (Hellmann's court ruled that the burglary was not staged)

And I think his pending Motivation report will robustly and thoroughly back this up with firm logic and the examination of all evidence. I think those expecting Hellmann's report to be weak or convoluted will be surprised. He may so undo the Massei logic that the Supreme Court will view all far differently than the prosecution would like them to.

[pilot padron]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Nope and how about a cite instead. Just what set of standards did the collection of this evidence meet?

As far as quoting American standards and DNA resources are you aware that <Dr. Stefanoni quoted the FBI in her power-point presentation on the DNA evidence?

Very aware of that.
1) Doctor Stefanoni quoted the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2) Hellmann's selected academic experts quoted the Missouri State Highway Patrol

So, are you really arguing that you want us to accept that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation is nothing more than just another glorified Missouri State Highway Patrol ???

Poor J.Edgar would roll over in his grave reading your comparison, I fear.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Umberto Brindani of Oggi, also a lucky recipient of one of Mignini's defamation 'investigations' in Italy has written an article about the aftermath of the case which deserves a read. I found this part intriguing, apparently Amanda wrote to them in prison telling them how much it meant to her, but begging them not to reveal her letter.




He also includes this little bit about potential accomplices of Rudy Guede:



I wonder if that's just an artifact of the police and prosecution being forced to gather 'evidence' of more than one person, and thus twist their 'analysis' to account for more than one attacker. If that isn't where it comes from, I wonder what makes him think that there was definitely more that one attacker, as this is something that Frank Sfarzo has also gone on about as well. Thinking about it the other day, outside Kokomeni, there's others who might not have told all they know and ought to have been a larger focus of the 'investigation:' the boys downstairs. After all, they are the ones who socialized with Rudy, and it might just be that proximity allowed him to ascertain that the cottage was likely to be empty most of the night, with the boys all away, along with Filomena and Laura, and Amanda staying with Raffaele.

Thanks for the link, that is very interesting. I have attempted a comment about the multiple attacker theory in probably very poor Italian. The other comments on this editorial are well worth reading.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Very aware of that.
1) Doctor Stefanoni quoted the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2) Hellmann's selected academic experts quoted the Missouri State Highway Patrol

So, are you really arguing that you want us to accept that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation is nothing more than just another glorified Missouri State Highway Patrol ???

Poor J.Edgar would roll over in his grave reading your comparison, I fear.

If they are generally and internationally accepted standards, they can quote the Mayberry Sheriff's department for all I care. So can you if you can show me a set of evidence collection standards that were met in this case.

[pilot padron]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Rose, I always stand in awe at your sharp wit when arguing.
So, surely your request to me for standards was tongue in cheek.

Two suggestions and a personal observation:

1) You probably know that the Boise State Student Newsletter once said in so many words that their own Dr Hampikian was pretty much the prime reason the dna was challenged successfully by Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.
Therefore, may I suggest you direct your request for 'standards' to him.

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Hampikian's writings formed the sole basis of the experts' opinions. If the doctor was part of the defense team, and they, an independent panel, what would motivate them to use his analysis?

Fully cognizant that I am surrounded by innocence arguers who relish spinning verbiage and fostering unique interpretations in arguments.

Therefore, for the record, me saying pretty much the prime reason is in no stretch of imagination equal to your interpreting me to say formed the sole basis

What I find hard to believe is that anyone at this late date, now wishes to dispute the role that Dr Hampikian played in the dna presentations of Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.
Minimizing Dr Hampikian's role, reminds me of how the role of Marriott was so erroneously minimized for so long in so many innocence arguments here.
This right up to and even after the Appeal when Curt Knox acknowledged that hiring Marriott was the best thing he ever did

BTW
Quickly telling Knox to stop talking when she said "I was there, I cannot change that" because Curt knew they were being monitored by authorities was IMHO, the second best thing he ever did.

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

Interesting! how where they killed?

They were killed by strangulation. This was ascertained as cause of death for the buried body. Unfortunately the body found in the lake did not undergo any autopsy. One carabiniere testified he reckoned at first sight a killing by strangulation rather than a drawning, but the Mobile Squad intervened - in a very irregular procedure, since they should be there only on cases of murder and only within their terrotory - the Questore ordered silence to the carabinieri unit that had come and had regular jurisdiction, the Mobile suad seized the body then carried it to the Narducci's estate, located out of the border of competence of the Questura and of the Procura of Perugia, where the body actually "disappeared" from all radars.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

What I find hard to believe is that anyone at this late date, now wishes to dispute the role that Dr Hampikian played in the dna presentations of Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.

You have a link to the student newsletter making this claim? The Idaho Innocence Project website says they "helped" Amanda's defense. On one post you make light of quoting standards by a state Highway Patrol and on another post you rely on a student news letter to support your point. I think "helped" is a more reasonable claim than no help at all or the primary factor.

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

If they are generally and internationally accepted standards, they can quote the Mayberry Sheriff's department for all I care. So can you if you can show me a set of evidence collection standards that were met in this case.

He can't.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Fully cognizant that I am surrounded by innocence arguers who relish spinning verbiage and fostering unique interpretations in arguments.

Therefore, for the record, me saying pretty much the prime reason is in no stretch of imagination equal to your interpreting me to say formed the sole basis

What I find hard to believe is that anyone at this late date, now wishes to dispute the role that Dr Hampikian played in the dna presentations of Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.
Minimizing Dr Hampikian's role, reminds me of how the role of Marriott was so erroneously minimized for so long in so many innocence arguments here.
This right up to and even after the Appeal when Curt Knox acknowledged that hiring Marriott was the best thing he ever did

BTW
Quickly telling Knox to stop talking when she said "I was there, I cannot change that" because Curt knew they were being monitored by authorities was IMHO, the second best thing he ever did.

I guess I forgot to word it as, "pretty much formed the basis" which is what I actually meant to say. But I really did think that an independent panel would be independent of both defense and prosecution experts' input. Is there something naive in that?

Insofar as Marriott goes: I guess if Mr. Knox believed a public relations effort to refute the false image of Knox, and replace it with one with more veracity, was a necessary move, then he would not be shy in saying so.

So I am grasping - a bit late, as I am not obsessed with the case - that to your thinking, Appeal Trial - Dr. Hampikian + Marriott = Convictions Upheld. What of the other evidence and input examined? Well, we shall see in the pending Motivation report of Hellmann.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

BTW
Quickly telling Knox to stop talking when she said "I was there, I cannot change that" because Curt knew they were being monitored by authorities was IMHO, the second best thing he ever did.

But Hellmann and the lay judges had some knowledge of these transcripts, correct? And did not give that snippet much weight, nor interpret it in the manner that you have?

[Grinder]

Does anybody have any idea why Filomena didn't call the police herself? If I were in her situation and a foreigner that barely spoke English called me with the situation, I'd call the police myself. Calls between them were mostly in English IIRC so she would know that Amanda wouldn't express herself well in Italian. She also was the primary lease holder and was the one that pushed to break down the door.

If we assume that she and her boyfriend killed Meredith, how clever for her to wait for Amanda to stop by the house. Why was she so concerned immediately? The police weren't immediately concerned and waited for her to order the door knocked open. The police could see the broken window yet they didn't call for backup or charge into Meredith's room. They saw the "bloody" bathroom yet didn't freak out. In fact, they behave much as Amanda did, but not Filomena she was freaked from the beginning.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Does anybody have any idea why Filomena didn't call the police herself? If I were in her situation and a foreigner that barely spoke English called me with the situation, I'd call the police myself. Calls between them were mostly in English IIRC so she would know that Amanda wouldn't express herself well in Italian. She also was the primary lease holder and was the one that pushed to break down the door.

If we assume that she and her boyfriend killed Meredith, how clever for her to wait for Amanda to stop by the house. Why was she so concerned immediately? The police weren't immediately concerned and waited for her to order the door knocked open. The police could see the broken window yet they didn't call for backup or charge into Meredith's room. They saw the "bloody" bathroom yet didn't freak out. In fact, they behave much as Amanda did, but not Filomena she was freaked from the beginning.

I had thought of this, and even moreso after reading Nina Burleigh's book, when she mentioned the immediate "lawyering up" of the flatmates. Considering the boys downstairs, their drug connections, and connections to Guede, there may have been more to investigate than had been previously thought. I guess now we will never get to the bottom of it.

[pilot padron]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

You have a link to the student newsletter making this claim? The Idaho Innocence Project website says they "helped" Amanda's defense. On one post you make light of quoting standards by a state Highway Patrol and on another post you rely on a student news letter to support your point. I think "helped" is a more reasonable claim than no help at all or the primary factor.

Actually, I find this customary quibbling about wording to be somewhat counterproductive.
But I do stand in awe at your knowledge and your courteous objective sharing of information here sharing of information here.
With that justification in mind, please follow me through.

I posted that a Newsletter stated in so many words that their own Dr Hampikian was pretty much the prime reason the dna was challenged successfully by Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.

Now I am challenged about that pretty much universally known fact.

Suggestion to challengers.
Put these or similar terms in any search engine: "Boise State professor and amanda knox"

I only scanned the first 12 pages with over 100 hits and many more unscanned.

Headlines like this were very common:
"Boise State Professor Uses Science to Exonerate Amanda Knox"

Can therefore we put this one to rest and start quibbling about some other word I chose to use somewhere else to argue guilt ??

[Grinder]

Since some people made such a big deal about the Corte Suprema di Cassazione confirming Rudy's sentence including the multiple attacker theory of Mignini, what will those same people say when the Corte Suprema di Cassazione confirms the acquittal of A&R still leaves open the possibility of more participants?

What will the PLE do? Will they review the unmatched DNA and fingerprints? Will they probe what Kokomani was really doing there that night? Will they check at Nara's to see if she could hear the scream much less the footsteps?

Does the PLE just ignore the courts' findings and say we know who did it and the courts got it wrong?

[Katody Matrass]

I see that the it needs repeating
The independent court appointed experts quoted Interpol and the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes forensic recommendations. They quoted Highway Patrol handbooks showing that the procedures are the same as of Interpol and ENFSI. Misrepresenting that, as displayed in this discussion is a miserable spin and very intellectually dishonest, not to mention simply mendacious.

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

But Hellmann and the lay judges had some knowledge of these transcripts, correct? And did not give that snippet much weight, nor interpret it in the manner that you have?

The judges had access to the entire conversation. Pilot only knows the part that was quoted out of context and repeated ad nauseam. Judge Hellmann rightfully admonished the shouting mob - they don't know the case file. Every Italian is a national team football couch in his own mind, he said, so it seems that everyone of them think himself a judge

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

They were killed by strangulation. This was ascertained as cause of death for the buried body.

All the sources I'm able to find say the cause of death was drowning.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Unfortunately the body found in the lake did not undergo any autopsy. One carabiniere testified he reckoned at first sight a killing by strangulation rather than a drawning,

So this is the source of the "strangulation" rumour? Knowing what I know about Italian police forces I find it rather not reliable

[smkovalinksy]

Then again, Filomena may have asked Amanda to call 112 merely because Amanda was there, and presumably saw more details...

[Bruce Fisher]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Minimizing Dr Hampikian's role, reminds me of how the role of Marriott was so erroneously minimized for so long in so many innocence arguments here.
This right up to and even after the Appeal when Curt Knox acknowledged that hiring Marriott was the best thing he ever did

I have always been very honest about Marriott's role. He worked as a buffer between the family and the relentless media. He scheduled interviews and allowed Amanda's parents to tell their story.

Was he a million dollar PR machine? Nope. Did he single-handedly win freedom for Amanda? Nope. Did he alleviate stress from the family making their lives easier in a time of extreme stress? Yes.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

Then again, Filomena may have asked Amanda to call 112 merely because Amanda was there, and presumably saw more details...

Anything's possble

Just a bit of fun parsing things to the last minute detail.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

In fact there were several other problems with the corpse beyond the trousers size (that anyway was not compatible with the corpse found drawned). Another problem for example was the fact that the first body had been in water for a while, was yet in a too advanced state of decomposition to be preserved (coprses in this state have a tyipical quick moulding with liquefaction of internal organs) while the unburied body was still intect in its internal organs and preserved. Apart from the series of pleasant details about the corpse, the point is the Narducci case was not really about what happened with this corpse. In other words the problem is not just to understand if the corpse was the buried one. This investigation lead to a conclusion that members of Narducci's family indeed did obstruct justice and hd the body, but these crimes are expired. The interesting part of the investigation is the connection with the monster of Florence.

As I recall it, the Narducci death was linked with the Monster of Florence after someone said to someone during an (otherwise unrelated incident a decade or so later) altercation they'd 'get it like Narducci' or somesuch, which in time caused Mignini to try to connect that with Giutarri's investigation. As for his finding 'evidence' the family 'hid the body,' that strikes me as the sort of a necessary condition for his investigation, which suggests to me he'd be finding 'evidence' of that everywhere.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Just to clarify. The MoF theories were set before Giuttari by other important florentine judges, such as prosecutor Vigna. The theories brought in by Giuttari were about the involvement of the chief prosecutoer Di Donno in an alleged obstruction of justice on the MoF investigation. These theories were subsequently accepted by Mignini (rightly or wrongly) as an investigation theme.

The theories directly involving Narducci ad relating him to the Monster of Florence investigation were set by using the investigations of Giuttari and merging it with the one where Mignini happaned to found himself in as he was called on the finding of the drawned body; but the whole Procura of Perugia supervised the setting of this new investigation that collected and merged material form different sources.

So where exactly did Carlizzi fit in? Was anyone else involved with the 'Order of the Red Rose' lead outside Mignini and Guiterra?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I never read Mignini's written orders. Neither the one about the Narducci case, nor the one about the Florentine investigation of Di Donno and company.
However the trial for abuse of office was about the latter Giuttari's invesigation on Di Donno: this one was the last step and in fact leaded by Giuttari.
I'm not able to come to a conclusion about the reliability of Michele Giuttari. I understand - retrospectively - that criticisms to his professional approach are possible, there can be issues in his claims and methods, but my knowledge about the details is insufficient for me to have an opinion.

He's a Mary-Sue character in a Dan Brown-style fan-fic!

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I can say that, by reading the sentencing report about Mignini and Giuttari, there is an absolute lack of kind of evidence to formulize any charge on Mignini, for sure.

Yet it was in fact formalized, and he was indeed convicted, and it wasn't because of lack of evidence that the conviction was killed.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

There is a fundamental point here, that I'm afraid you and many other will miss, at least for a while unless you can see it explained repeateadly.
The Mignini's case is not a technicality, and you would never call it "a technicality" if that happened to you or to anyone whom you believe innocent.

It is my understanding the decision was that the judiciary in Florence was the subject of the investigation, as such they couldn't have 'jurisdiction' over Mignini's case, n'est pas? Now, it is entirely possible that was in fact a debilitating factor in his first conviction; however it is also quite possible that Mignini was guilty and just used that as an argument to forestall the proceedings in hopes 'the horse would learn to sing,' i.e. that something would happen to derail the process and he wouldn't be indicted again in Turin.

Incidentally, why Turin?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

It's more like, imagine an Afghani court founds Britney Spears guilty of breaching the Sharia law. On appeal, a higher court rules that the Sharia tribunal was illegitimate since it had no jurisdiction, has no title to apply and interpretat the law on Britney Spears. Therefore the higher court declares the previous indictment and trial entirely illegitimate and null. In other words, the Sharia court is not Britney Spears' judge.

I understand what you mean, however it does make me wonder just how jurisdiction rules work in Italy with prosecutors deciding they have 'jurisdiction' over Google executives because of a Youtube not pulled down fast enough, or friendly-fire incidents in Iraq. I assume that's because some element of the case related to their area, much like some of the excesses of Giuterri and Mignini's 'investigation' happened in and around Florence.

That's not exactly the Ayatollah and the pop star.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

You would never call that "getting off on a technicality". You would never call that way such an event if it hapened to you: if ever happened that someone with no legitimacy "decides" to indict you and iterprets that what you did was illegal (and the party who interprets it is the same that was offendend by your action).

What would have been far more exculpatory was if they'd decided the interpretation of the law was in fact incorrect, rather than if the Florence court should have had jurisdiction over it. They could have done that as well, couldn't they have? As it stands they left it open so it could still be pursued, thus did not rule that what he did was not a violation of the law, which is what he was pushing in the CNN interview. Incidentally, have you seen it? Here's a transcript if you don't want to wade through the whole video, as I recall you were on 'sabbatical' when it came out, so if you've not seen it you might want to at least read the transcript. There's also a full transcript of the entire interview available, which I have saved on my computer, that was produced after the broadcast under the assumption that CNN cut the aired one to Mignini's disfavor. It turned out the additional material was even more juicy, and rumor has it that the 'extended' version disappeared from the website it was hosted on, though I didn't actually check personally to see if that happened. At any rate I''m sure you can also find the whole thing if you ask in the right places.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

In legal terms, Mignini's position is more favourable than Amanda's position and of Sollecito's.
Mignini was not in fact found "innocent": he was found to be unfairly indicted. Which can be seen as much more than being found not guilty.
No court ever found him guilty of anything in any instance, in fact, because the judges who ruled on him were not his judges. The sentencing report with the opinion of a florentine judge about him has the same legitimacy and value of posters' opinion on JREF: that is nothing. This means no legitimate judge ever found him guilty of anything, and not even found him indictable of anything.

The outcome of his trial - not that of Knox - is the closest thing to an acknowledgment that he was unjustly prosecuted and tried.
Knox was found guilty of calunnia and condemned to pay huge amounts of money. And also Sollecito in the trial of first instance got a conviction: Massei's verdict was overturned but still Massei's report is legitimate and belongs to their trial file; it is still there and usable by the supreme court and for civil purposes. Moreover their murder trial is stil pending, they are still defendants.

However with this caveat: he is still vulnerable for prosecution on those charges, which were not dismissed because of lack of evidence or them failing to be violations of the law, but because the case was determined to be processed incorrectly. In contrast Raffaele and Amanda were actually found innocent due to lack of evidence or the 'crime' (in the case of the 'staged' break-in) not having occurred.

So, Mignini is the fox in the hen house with blood on his teeth and a dead chicken in his mouth, but the farmer has to lower the shotgun because he realized it's actually the neighbor's chicken, whereas with Raffaele and Amanda it's been discovered the blood on the teeth was ketchup and the chicken died of knife wounds, thus they weren't involved in the killing. If the neighboring farmer grabs his shotgun fast enough he might still catch himself a chicken-thief, whereas Amanda and Raffaele have flown the coop, thus in that respect they are better off.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

The position of Mignini instead is tne cancellation of the entire trial file from all acts and records. Illegitimate, to be considered never existing, not just a judge gives a further opinion about the investigation: no investigation and no indictment was ever legitimate. Not just the verdict and sentencing report or just the trial is null, but the whole process from the roots, included the preliminary investigation with its indictments and rulings: all judiciary acts about Mignini and Giuttari are null.

Which also means the victories they had in the initial trial have been lost as well, as I recall Mignini won on some issues, evidence was ruled against that was awfully damning to his position, wouldn't that be a negative effect?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

And, as opposed to the case of Knox and Sollecito, the cases on them are not pending. By now there is no case, no indictment. No legitimate judicial authority ever stated - currently - they should be charged or investigated for something.

Did you know that there are some institutions that will offer a 'clean record' and a resignation for those afoul their codes to spare the pain and embarrassment of prosecuting them, and in acknowledgment of past performance?

I wonder what happens if Mignini doesn't retire?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I have no idea. It's possible. There are only two options: the archiviation of the case, or the request for a trial. If there is a request for a trial, I'm positive that this will never lead to a conviction.

Why did it lead to a conviction in the first trial? For example, I know why Amanda and Raffaele were convicted in the Trial of the First Instance in Massei's court, it's complicated but in the end it makes sense, at least to me, if not some others. It also made perfect sense that they would be acquitted in the Trial of the Second Instance, and it didn't even surprise me all that much that Amanda was convicted of the calunnia charge, though you know how I felt about that, I had a nasty feeling the whole time it would work out something like it did.

Thus what is the narrative for Mignini's conviction? The Florentine judiciary is all corrupt and out to get him, or to cover up what he discovered? Believe it or not you could convince me that is possible with evidence, however until then the dismissal of the case seems to me to be simply a technicality intended to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, or to prevent a possible one, not because Mignini wasn't guilty of what he was charged with.

BTW, how come it took so long for Matteini to recuse herself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I'd think the connection to the original case against Raffaele and Amanda ought to have been enough, yet she dragged her heels on it for at least a year. She is off of the police calunnia trial against Amanda, isn't she?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Minus the judiciary acts, that is judges rulings and opinions. Phone wiretappings, testimonies, are included. But rulings and judges opinions are null.

Thus it could go worse for him in Turin then?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I don't know, in particular I dont know how powerful. But the issues in the Narducci investigation are many. The key thing is that both the buried person and the body found in the lake were in fact killed, and there was no accidental drawning in the lake. The Narducci case is a case of murder, the Questura of Perugia of that time probably knew this from the very beginning, and this is the reason for its covering.

That could be, however as I recall the forensic evidence of murder in Narducci's case was that a bone in the neck had snapped, that's something that could have happened during the course of the suicide and the recovery of the body as well.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Well the Monster of Florence investigations took place mostly in Florence.
On the other hand, a Monster Mystery is always an attraction for investigators, and so I guess such attraction by some may balance the oblivious attitude of others.

You know there's probably someone out there still looking for the Zodiac killer, it would probably make for a better TV show than an actual investigation at this point.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Actually, I find this customary quibbling about wording to be somewhat counterproductive.
But I do stand in awe at your knowledge and your courteous objective sharing of information here sharing of information here.
With that justification in mind, please follow me through.

I posted that a Newsletter stated in so many words that their own Dr Hampikian was pretty much the prime reason the dna was challenged successfully by Hellmann's selected academic 'experts'.

Now I am challenged about that pretty much universally known fact.

Suggestion to challengers.
Put these or similar terms in any search engine: "Boise State professor and amanda knox"

I only scanned the first 12 pages with over 100 hits and many more unscanned.

Headlines like this were very common:
"Boise State Professor Uses Science to Exonerate Amanda Knox"

Can therefore we put this one to rest and start quibbling about some other word I chose to use somewhere else to argue guilt ??

Pilot, you should stop playing games and either answer the question or admit you can't.

QUESTION: Can you name any international, or even Italian DNA Collection and Testing Standards document that would accept the process and methods used in the collection, testing and interpretation of DNA from this case?

Ridiculing who determined standards were not followed doesn't help you position one iota. What you need to do is be able to point to a recognized standards document that would approve of collection and testing from this case. That's what Rose has been asking for and what you have, quite predictably, been avoiding. One can only conclude that's because you can't and you just hate to admit that.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Ultimately it was initiated by Mignini himself, when he found out he was being criticized in the American and British press. He linked it to hiring of Gogerty-Marriott by the besieged parents of Amanda, suggesting all negative press was the result of that. The 'million-dollar' figure no doubt comes from an interview where they revealed they'd spent about a million dollars on expenses as a result of the trial, mainly of course on lawyers, experts, airfare and maintaining two residences. Perhaps Mignini thinks those minor concerns in comparison!

Thank you. I had been seeing the references here, but when I read some reviews/comments on Amazon, it was such pervasive boilerplate from the pro-guilt folks, I wanted to know more about the source.

Originally Posted by pilot padron

...reminds me of how the role of Marriott was so erroneously minimized for so long in so many innocence arguments here.
This right up to and even after the Appeal when Curt Knox acknowledged that hiring Marriott was the best thing he ever did

And I see it's not going away any time soon...

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

Then again, Filomena may have asked Amanda to call 112 merely because Amanda was there, and presumably saw more details...

But why was she more exorcised about the whole event from minute to minute than anyone else? She called Amanda's phone numerous times. She came in and ordered the door broken down.

I forget now, but how many times did she try Meredith's phones?

I find her behavior very strange. Why would she engage a lawyer immediately? Why did she send "witnesses" to arrive mere minutes before she did? Why was she so freaked out when the PP weren't?

Why was she so adamant that Meredith never locked her door? Since she worked different hours than Meredith attended school, how would she know if Meredith locked her door or not? Did she check Meredith's door when Meredith was away and that's how she knew the door was never locked? Why did she test the door? Did she regularly "search" the rooms of other renters? It was very important to her to make clear to the PP that the door should not be locked, why?

I doubt Filomena was a primary participant in the murder, but I thought giving her actions the same sort of questioning, every action of Raffaele and Amanda has been given, might be interesting.

And why did Meredith's new boyfriend desert her for the holidays? Why didn't he take her along or stay with her?

If one parses everything, everybody looks just a little guilty.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Anything's possble

Just a bit of fun parsing things to the last minute detail.

Yes, and as I said, Nina Burleigh did in fact bring up your very same questions in her text. For some more fun, it has been said on a certain site that "Claudio Hellmann's" very name was a prediction of what would come to pass:
1. "Claudio" from the Latin, "disable"
2. Hellmann of Germanic origin, in English, "man of Hell"
3. "Justice will be disabled by a man of Hell" (mayhap even with Masonic ties?)
4. The Italian/German axis fused : "Claudio(Italian) Hellmann (Germanic)" running parallel to the Italian/German axis of "Sollecito/Knox"!
(Of course, this is merely an attempt at a little humor and comic relief; probably very little- we were just having some fun on a guilter parody thread....guess you had to have been there)....

[Grinder]

An interesting article WILL AMANDA KNOX EVER HAVE THE LIFE SHE DREAMED OF?

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Grinder

But why was she more exorcised about the whole event from minute to minute than anyone else? She called Amanda's phone numerous times. She came in and ordered the door broken down.

I forget now, but how many times did she try Meredith's phones?

I find her behavior very strange. Why would she engage a lawyer immediately? Why did she send "witnesses" to arrive mere minutes before she did? Why was she so freaked out when the PP weren't?

Why was she so adamant that Meredith never locked her door? Since she worked different hours than Meredith attended school, how would she know if Meredith locked her door or not? Did she check Meredith's door when Meredith was away and that's how she knew the door was never locked? Why did she test the door? Did she regularly "search" the rooms of other renters? It was very important to her to make clear to the PP that the door should not be locked, why?

I doubt Filomena was a primary participant in the murder, but I thought giving her actions the same sort of questioning, every action of Raffaele and Amanda has been given, might be interesting.

And why did Meredith's new boyfriend desert her for the holidays? Why didn't he take her along or stay with her?

If one parses everything, everybody looks just a little guilty.

Yes: Nina Burleigh poses such questions in her book, and points out that Filomena and Laura (?) consulted with attorneys. The boys downstairs were involved in drug taking, dealing, and cannibis growing. They were connected to, and spoke with, Guede. I had heard that Filomena had gotten rid of some of her computer files (cannot recall source now, so take it for what it is worth). A lot of murky goings on around that cottage.....Probably not a good idea to have 4 boys downstairs, 4 girls upstairs...I had read that Giocomo had said personal and sexual things to the others about Kercher, which I thought was both rude and dangerous.....

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Grinder

An interesting article WILL AMANDA KNOX EVER HAVE THE LIFE SHE DREAMED OF?

Thank you for posting that link. A very lengthy article; have not read it in its entirety yet. But I would agree that the psychological after-shocks will be with Amanda for some time; perhaps, forever.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

Yes, and as I said, Nina Burleigh did in fact bring up your very same questions in her text. For some more fun, it has been said on a certain site that "Claudio Hellmann's" very name was a prediction of what would come to pass:
1. "Claudio" from the Latin, "disable"
2. Hellmann of Germanic origin, in English, "man of Hell"
3. "Justice will be disabled by a man of Hell" (mayhap even with Masonic ties?)
4. The Italian/German axis fused : "Claudio(Italian) Hellmann (Germanic)" running parallel to the Italian/German axis of "Sollecito/Knox"!
(Of course, this is merely an attempt at a little humor and comic relief; probably very little- we were just having some fun on a guilter parody thread....guess you had to have been there)....

I haven't looked up the detail of this, but the word "hell" in German means "bright". The word for hell is "hölle".

Rolfe.

[Moss]

Hrm, I seem to always forget the whole SMS to Lumumba deal when discussing this case. I distinctly remember someone already mentioned that before to me. Sorry, seems like my memory is leaky when it comes to this case.
Yep, that seems awfully convenient.
The whole Monster of Florence case seems an awful failure in its entirety. The theory involving Narducci makes about as much sense as the Royal Conspiracy for the Jack the Ripper case.
The involvement of Ms. Carlizzi does not help. She sounds disturbed and possibly in need of professional help.

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by Grinder

But why was she more exorcised about the whole event from minute to minute than anyone else? She called Amanda's phone numerous times. She came in and ordered the door broken down.

I forget now, but how many times did she try Meredith's phones?

I find her behavior very strange. Why would she engage a lawyer immediately? Why did she send "witnesses" to arrive mere minutes before she did? Why was she so freaked out when the PP weren't?

Why was she so adamant that Meredith never locked her door? Since she worked different hours than Meredith attended school, how would she know if Meredith locked her door or not? Did she check Meredith's door when Meredith was away and that's how she knew the door was never locked? Why did she test the door? Did she regularly "search" the rooms of other renters? It was very important to her to make clear to the PP that the door should not be locked, why?

I doubt Filomena was a primary participant in the murder, but I thought giving her actions the same sort of questioning, every action of Raffaele and Amanda has been given, might be interesting.

And why did Meredith's new boyfriend desert her for the holidays? Why didn't he take her along or stay with her?

If one parses everything, everybody looks just a little guilty.

It's also interesting to note how all those "best friends" who testified so feverishly against Amanda in reality gave not a flying frack about Meredith.
The alcohol abusing English group, none of them expressed any real concern about Meredith staying alone at night in a desolate building. Sophie Purton who was in such a rush to view her stupid TV show that she bothered only to walk Meredith half a way. And she neither called nor texted her to check if she safely got home.

Giacomo was no better. Left her completely alone as it was convenient to have her look over his in-house "drug operation" while he was on vacation. Interesting detail was how he ignored her completely in public situations. He didn't bother to call her either, texted her once only to order her to take his stupid pants off the line.

I think the attack that those people started on Amanda stemmed from their own qualms and guilt.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

It's also interesting to note how all those "best friends" who testified so feverishly against Amanda in reality gave not a flying frack about Meredith.
The alcohol abusing English group, none of them expressed any real concern about Meredith staying alone at night in a desolate building. Sophie Purton who was in such a rush to view her stupid TV show that she bothered only to walk Meredith half a way. And she neither called nor texted her to check if she safely got home.

Giacomo was no better. Left her completely alone as it was convenient to have her look over his in-house "drug operation" while he was on vacation. Interesting detail was how he ignored her completely in public situations. He didn't bother to call her either, texted her once only to order her to take his stupid pants off the line.

I think the attack that those people started on Amanda stemmed from their own qualms and guilt.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't appear as if ANY of that group of British girls were really looking out for one another. Yes, Sophie let Meredith walk alone half way but then, so did Sophie walk alone. No one called to make sure Meredith got home safely - but on the other hand, did anyone call Sophie either? The only exception I've seen to this is Meredith herself. Amanda said that Meredith was kind and caring and worried about her (Amanda) walking from work alone at night. Too bad Meredith's wonderful "close" friends didn't do the same for her.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I haven't looked up the detail of this, but the word "hell" in German means "bright". The word for hell is "hölle".

Rolfe.

Right, that is why I said, "in English"--we were just fooling around with that stuff on the parody thread on IIP.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

It's also interesting to note how all those "best friends" who testified so feverishly against Amanda in reality gave not a flying frack about Meredith.
The alcohol abusing English group, none of them expressed any real concern about Meredith staying alone at night in a desolate building. Sophie Purton who was in such a rush to view her stupid TV show that she bothered only to walk Meredith half a way. And she neither called nor texted her to check if she safely got home.

Giacomo was no better. Left her completely alone as it was convenient to have her look over his in-house "drug operation" while he was on vacation. Interesting detail was how he ignored her completely in public situations. He didn't bother to call her either, texted her once only to order her to take his stupid pants off the line.

I think the attack that those people started on Amanda stemmed from their own qualms and guilt.

I would agree. I do not care for what I have read RE Giocomo, either. Often when people feel guilt, they also feel the need for a scapegoat.