Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:55 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:55 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 - Jan 24, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 10 of 12 [ 2769 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Lauowolf, thank you. My disabled cat, who loves to be held in my arms and watch the computer screen, loved it.

And Bard, no need to apologize. Thanks for speaking out. You are part of a wonderful group of people.

By the way, I did have to laugh at DF2K's snarky reference to Frank. One way to keep women down is to spread rumors about them. The fact is, Frank Sfarzo rivals DF2K in his deep-seated rage with regard to women. The last time I heard from Frank was in an email in December of 2008 entitled Merry Christmas. In it, there was nothing merry and no spirit of Christmas was to be found. I was "traité de tous les noms" as we say in French. So DF and Frank have that in common: they loathe me. I don't know how I shall carry on!:)

Usually I would not make a comment like the one above, but sometimes you have to bite back.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:46 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Do you mean Mignini's trial and Amanda's defamation charge? I see what you mean. There seems to be another peak of barking mad posting approaching.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:21 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Bard - Wow.
Yeah.
What she said.

And, yeah, next bout of heavy weather coming up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
By the way, I did have to laugh at DF2K's snarky reference to Frank. One way to keep women down is to spread rumors about them. The fact is, Frank Sfarzo rivals DF2K in his deep-seated rage with regard to women. The last time I heard from Frank was in an email in December of 2008 entitled Merry Christmas. In it, there was nothing merry and no spirit of Christmas was to be found. I was "traité de tous les noms" as we say in French. So DF and Frank have that in common: they loathe me. I don't know how I shall carry on!:)

Usually I would not make a comment like the one above, but sometimes you have to bite back.


Not to worry, Skep. No one believes you still collaborate with Frank. We have Frank's word on it.
In the Channel 4 documentary
Frank Sfarzo said, and I quote...(fast forward to the 40 minute mark)
"I do everything by myself."
. wan-)
It's a LOL moment.
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.

Do we have a flabbergasted emoticon? Yes, Tiziano, I believe the correct term is "sockpuppet". The Meatpuppets were a band.... And now, I will take my menopausal a$$ into the kitchen for some dinner. DF2K, I highly encourage you to get some Pamprin.......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The 411 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
By the way, I did have to laugh at DF2K's snarky reference to Frank. One way to keep women down is to spread rumors about them. The fact is, Frank Sfarzo rivals DF2K in his deep-seated rage with regard to women. The last time I heard from Frank was in an email in December of 2008 entitled Merry Christmas. In it, there was nothing merry and no spirit of Christmas was to be found. I was "traité de tous les noms" as we say in French. So DF and Frank have that in common: they loathe me. I don't know how I shall carry on!:)

Usually I would not make a comment like the one above, but sometimes you have to bite back.


Not to worry, Skep. No one believes you still collaborate with Frank. We have Frank's word on it.
In the Channel 4 documentary
Frank Sfarzo said, and I quote...(fast forward to the 40 minute mark)
"I do everything by myself."
. wan-)
It's a LOL moment.



This may be the only time Frank has ever been entirely truthful.:)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.

Do we have a flabbergasted emoticon? Yes, Tiziano, I believe the correct term is "sockpuppet". The Meatpuppets were a band.... And now, I will take my menopausal a$$ into the kitchen for some dinner. DF2K, I highly encourage you to get some Pamprin.......



You may be running out of hormones but you know your bands!

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:55 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.


Hi Tiziano, please enlighten me: what is an "utter dill"?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:59 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

martin wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.


Hi Tiziano, please enlighten me: what is an "utter dill"?


Heh. A dill is a pickled cucumber. Which looks a lot like a ....

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:02 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
martin wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.


Hi Tiziano, please enlighten me: what is an "utter dill"?


Heh. A dill is a pickled cucumber. Which looks a lot like a ....


Hi Some Alibi, i know the vegetable, like parsley, but she meant something else
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

martin wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
martin wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.


Hi Tiziano, please enlighten me: what is an "utter dill"?


Heh. A dill is a pickled cucumber. Which looks a lot like a ....


Hi Some Alibi, i know the vegetable, like parsley, but she meant something else


No you're thinking of dill the herb which is a slightly minty herby *herb*. A dill is also a pickeled cucumber as I said. It's therefore a penis metaphor!

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Ok, Some Alibi, thanks
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

martin wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
martin wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.


Hi Tiziano, please enlighten me: what is an "utter dill"?


Heh. A dill is a pickled cucumber. Which looks a lot like a ....


Hi Some Alibi, i know the vegetable, like parsley, but she meant something else


SA has a point (HAHA), Martin.

Here in Oz a dill is a twit, or if we are talking about pickles., (not problems, but the edible pickles) a dill is a dill-flavoured mini cucumber, beloved of Poles & Hungarians in particular. Dill is of course an aniseed-flavoured herb. An utter anything is a complete one; if we wanted to be really rude, we would be saying the some-one is a complete & utter moron, or ever ruder, a perfect dick(head)!
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tiziano wrote:
martin wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
martin wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
You are an utter dill, Deathfish.

Who rattled your cage? And what, pray, is a "meat puppet"?

Just leave Skep alone. She & Michael are the most patient, kind and considerate of moderators.

Who hates men? As far as I read the board, the major opprobrium has been reserved for Knox; Sollecito is regarded by most as her "sockpuppet", to borrow a term used by several US posters.

And Guede is not seen as the principal player in the macabre, murderous game either.


Hi Tiziano, please enlighten me: what is an "utter dill"?


Heh. A dill is a pickled cucumber. Which looks a lot like a ....


Hi Some Alibi, i know the vegetable, like parsley, but she meant something else


SA has a point (HAHA), Martin.

Here in Oz a dill is a twit, or if we are talking about pickles., (not problems, but the edible pickles) a dill is a dill-flavoured mini cucumber, beloved of Poles & Hungarians in particular. Dill is of course an aniseed-flavoured herb. An utter anything is a complete one; if we wanted to be really rude, we would be saying the some-one is a complete & utter moron, or ever ruder, a perfect dick(head)!


Hi Tiziano,
Yes I knew dill the herb, but i didn't know it's also a cucumber. Of course I knew the expressions moron or d...head, but I never heard "utter dill".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hello again, Tiziano,

did you also read the book "Amanda e gli altri, vite perdute....." You liked it?
Alles Gute, bis bald.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Do you think they had record traffic congestion in Perugia that day which prevented a car driver to go a mile inside 30 minutes?

Personally, I believe from the evidence and their testimony in court that they all arrived before 1pm.


Walking at a casual pace, with no stopping, will get you 2 miles per hour. Walking a mile down the road in half an hour's time would not make most people break into a sweat.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:44 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
You all now on this board try to impress each other in how intelligent you are.
It is actually boring,
This board has turned into a rabbit hutch.
It stinks of rabbit shit.
All you sisters on here can continue to do it for your selves.
Would all you feminists on here be so concerned if Amanda Knox had killed a male student?
No! you wouldn't.
YOU WOULDN'T EVEN PAY IT LIP SERVICE.
All you bunny rabbit posting meat puppets are laughable.
Oh! I'm a feminist this and I'm a feminist that.
Why is the death of a student girl sexist? Why turn this tragedy into a sexist issue?
Get a grip.
Skeptical Bystander, you must be the most pompous person in the history of the world.
It seems you cannot be wrong.
I wish I was right all the time like you.
Off course you will have your supporters here but it means nothing.
Anything you say, has to be right, because you are a perfect person but at the end of the day you are a pompous asshole.
I dont care, get all your meat puppets on to me!
I dont give a tinkers cuss!
You appear on this board but people tell me you are still involved with Frank.
How do you you sleep?
I do not care one iota about this board, since you have allowed it to be turned into a man hating platform.
Goodbye LOL!!!

i


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Here, let me help you out the door ;)


___________-

"A man hating platform"? Being a man I must have missed a lot of the subliminal messages in bygone posts. On reflection, hmmm,... was it the defense here of Amanda's rights to own (and use) that pink jackrabbit? So all these posted pictures of RABBITS are sending the secret message that our sisters should "do it for yourselves", which then makes us guys in this Perugia Rabbit Hutch....uh, gulp, obsolete? How could I have been so stoopid!

And Skep, NOW I see why you insist on defending Filomena's so-called innocence. She looks like a feminist.



The roommates, Filomena, Amanda, Laura

///


Last edited by fine on Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

fine wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
You all now on this board try to impress each other in how intelligent you are.
It is actually boring,
This board has turned into a rabbit hutch.
It stinks of rabbit shit.
All you sisters on here can continue to do it for your selves.
Would all you feminists on here be so concerned if Amanda Knox had killed a male student?
No! you wouldn't.
YOU WOULDN'T EVEN PAY IT LIP SERVICE.
All you bunny rabbit posting meat puppets are laughable.
Oh! I'm a feminist this and I'm a feminist that.
Why is the death of a student girl sexist? Why turn this tragedy into a sexist issue?
Get a grip.
Skeptical Bystander, you must be the most pompous person in the history of the world.
It seems you cannot be wrong.
I wish I was right all the time like you.
Off course you will have your supporters here but it means nothing.
Anything you say, has to be right, because you are a perfect person but at the end of the day you are a pompous asshole.
I dont care, get all your meat puppets on to me!
I dont give a tinkers cuss!
You appear on this board but people tell me you are still involved with Frank.
How do you you sleep?
I do not care one iota about this board, since you have allowed it to be turned into a man hating platform.
Goodbye LOL!!!

i


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Here, let me help you out the door ;)


___________-

"A man hating platform"? Being a man I must have missed a lot of the subliminal messages in bygone posts. On reflection, hmmm,... was it the defense of Amanda's rights to own (and use) that pink jackrabbit? So all these posted pictures of RABBITS are sending the secret message that our sisters should "do it for yourselves", which then makes us guys in this Perugia Rabbit Hutch....uh, gulp, obsolete? How could I have been so stupid!

And Skep, NOW I see why you insist on defnding Filomena's so-called innocence. She looks like a feminist.

///


:lol: :lol: Not only that, but she wears glasses! How sexy (not) is that!

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:58 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Wowie Zowie! My day job ties me up for a few days and I miss a Freak-Out and a Banning.

Is it too late now for me to build a campfire, heat up some road tar, and donate my old feather pillow to give deathfish a proper exit? We could have a barbeque social afterward now that the cold winter weather has broke with a few Star Hill Jomo Lagers to drown the BBQ down. Everybody can bring a yummy home-cooked dish of something. I've got the winter blahs and sure would enjoy seeing some smiling faces, hearing some good conversation, and watching you ladies prom around in some bright pretty dresses. At this point, I'll take just seeing a few crocuses or skunk cabbage in bloom as a promising sign.

Bard, I thank you for posting your commentary in response to deathfish's tirade. I have wondered why the murder of someone none of us knew resonated so strongly with women in general. I had never considered that some women viewed MK's plight and fate as an archetypic symbol of the mistreatment of women.


Last edited by Greggy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bolint wrote:
Quote:
The arrival of the postals shifted now about 20 minutes (from 12.26 to about 12:46) and nothing should be changed in our concepts of the timing of events?

So I assume this little controversy is a semantic non-event. Until we have it confirmed otherwise, it's unlikely the prosecution re-jigged the whole Nov 1st timeline for the summing-up?
Perugia's Finest Postal bomb squad arrived on the scene around 12.30-5 pm and . . . . etc etc
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

BTW - are those a couple of cherries, or a pair of nuts on that yellow t-shirt.
Maybe DF2K was right after all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:51 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Greggy wrote:
Wowie Zowie! My day job ties me up for a few days and I miss a Freak-Out and a Banning.

Is it too late now for me to build a campfire, heat up some road tar, and donate my old feather pillow to give deathfish a proper exit? We could have a barbeque social afterward now that the cold winter weather has broke with a few Star Hill Jomo Lagers to drown the BBQ down. Everybody can bring a yummy home-cooked dish of something. I've got the winter blahs and sure would enjoy seeing some smiling faces, hearing some good conversation, and watching you ladies prom around in some bright pretty dresses. At this point, I'll take just seeing a few crocuses or skunk cabbage in bloom as a promising sign.

Bard, I thank you for posting your commentary in response to deathfish's tirade. I have wondered why the murder of someone none of us knew resonated so strongly with women in general. I had never considered that some women viewed MK's plight and fate as an archetypic symbol of the mistreatment of women.


I don't know where you are Greggy, but here in Seattle we have signs of spring galore. It is downright disconcerting for hibernationists like me!

As for Bard's transcendental tirade, well, it ain't for nothing that she's called The Bard. tt-)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline vassil01


Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:51 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Emerald wrote:
When Amanda was in her room while the police were there, why didn't she get some underwear, instead of buying new the next day? Strange that Amanda was not too bothered by the bloody, gory crime scene that she actually believed the police would not mind if she continued to sleep there.


But if she did do that I'm sure we would be vilifying here for thinking of her underwear when her dead roommate was next door!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
BTW - are those a couple of cherries, or a pair of nuts on that yellow t-shirt.
Maybe DF2K was right after all.


:lol:

It is a subliminal secret plot. Beware!

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Convicted killer Amanda Knox to be sued for slander over her claims that she was beaten by police
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:16 PM on 20th January 2010

THE DAILY MAIL


I am glad to see this making the news. As many of you know, my original interest in the Perugia murder was the shocking (but false) revelations in the Seattle media of the near torture AK was subjected to during the investigation. It went from 41+ hours intense interrogation while deprived of all rights to, nearer the truth, AK learning that RS had changed his alibi and very quickly deciding on the new tactic of naming Mr Lumumba as Meredith's killer.

It may be merely symbolic but it's an important step in establishing the truth about the investigation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

vassil01 wrote:
Emerald wrote:
When Amanda was in her room while the police were there, why didn't she get some underwear, instead of buying new the next day? Strange that Amanda was not too bothered by the bloody, gory crime scene that she actually believed the police would not mind if she continued to sleep there.


But if she did do that I'm sure we would be vilifying here for thinking of her underwear when her dead roommate was next door!


I think this is one of those things that could be retroactively analyzed either way. And of course, theoretically she did not know at the time what was lying behind the door. Getting her undies would only have aroused suspicion. At the same time, I don't buy her reasons for going home to take a shower.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:05 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
bolint wrote:
Quote:
The arrival of the postals shifted now about 20 minutes (from 12.26 to about 12:46) and nothing should be changed in our concepts of the timing of events?

So I assume this little controversy is a semantic non-event. Until we have it confirmed otherwise, it's unlikely the prosecution re-jigged the whole Nov 1st timeline for the summing-up?
Perugia's Finest Postal bomb squad arrived on the scene around 12.30-5 pm and . . . . etc etc


That's my reading so far, for what it's worth.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
Convicted killer Amanda Knox to be sued for slander over her claims that she was beaten by police
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:16 PM on 20th January 2010

THE DAILY MAIL


I am glad to see this making the news. As many of you know, my original interest in the Perugia murder was the shocking (but false) revelations in the Seattle media of the near torture AK was subjected to during the investigation. It went from 41+ hours intense interrogation while deprived of all rights to, nearer the truth, AK learning that RS had changed his alibi and very quickly deciding on the new tactic of naming Mr Lumumba as Meredith's killer.

It may be merely symbolic but it's an important step in establishing the truth about the investigation.


I don't think it is merely symbolic. The allegations are serious and have been vigorously denied. They need to be decided once and for all. The latest move, IMO, is a logical outgrowth of the verdict. I think the starting point for all of this was Amanda's colorful letters from prison, sent to Madison and others.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:35 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
...

Except in the questions about the first phone call that is.

...

Anyway, back to Edda. Throughout the programme when interviewed she is talking to the interviewer with minor eye contact breaks as I say. All except, that is, during describing the first phone call. In that section she has furrowed eyebrows throughout, her hands come into play a lot and she is making open handed explanation gestures and she is looking at the floor a great deal. It's especially weird since the second phone call she describes as "far worse" (because they had discovered Meredith then) but she is heads up, looking at the interviewer, passive hands, no furrowed eyebrows - nothing. Or throughout the rest of the programme. Coincidence? Maybe. But mostly I'm thinking... what is it that's so hard to describe about that first phone call Edda? What does the crying Mama Knox know?


That first phone call really struck me, too, especially since a discussion about the cell phones came up at the JREF forum.

Even without the video there's something horribly wrong about the two accounts (EM and AK) of this 88 second call in the middle of the night Seattle time. Edda's court testimony is not convincing and I thought it actually served to undermine her credibility and her daughter's at the same time.

Why wouldn't AK's lawyers talk to Edda about what she was going to say? Not that lawyers would ever tell their clients to lie but why not get the story straight? Or at least believable?

I don't believe either of their stories about that first phone call. The Polizia were already at the cottage. That is indisputable. And that would be the very first thing you'd talk about--put yourself in AK's shoes--when calling home. Perhaps after "Listen, Mom, I'm in trouble".

That's the detail that both of them are working so hard to conceal--I am speculating but with a large degree of certainty. So why wouldn't they get their stories straight? It's not as if AK hadn't changed her story about other--even less important--things.

Bizarre. huh-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:24 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I am glad to see this making the news. As many of you know, my original interest in the Perugia murder was the shocking (but false) revelations in the Seattle media of the near torture AK was subjected to during the investigation. It went from 41+ hours intense interrogation while deprived of all rights to, nearer the truth, AK learning that RS had changed his alibi and very quickly deciding on the new tactic of naming Mr Lumumba as Meredith's killer.

It may be merely symbolic but it's an important step in establishing the truth about the investigation.


I don't think it is merely symbolic. The allegations are serious and have been vigorously denied. They need to be decided once and for all. The latest move, IMO, is a logical outgrowth of the verdict. I think the starting point for all of this was Amanda's colorful letters from prison, sent to Madison and others.


They do sound serious.

If I'm not mistaken, you can say all kinds of things about the authorities here and they won't charge you with slander. I take it there is a difference in law in Italy. Or am I mistaken? If you told people here (or in the US) that the police brutalised you but you weren't brutalised, would they charge you?

And, by "symbolic", I probably ought to have asked this instead: Is it possible or even likely that AK could be found guilty of slander but that no penalty would be applied?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

martin wrote:
Hello again, Tiziano,

did you also read the book "Amanda e gli altri, vite perdute....." You liked it?
Alles Gute, bis bald.


Guten Morgen Martin! And good evening to me. I am going to make you all very jealous by telling you I am just back from a trip to the waterfront in Hobart where I scored a DOZEN FAT FRESH OYSTERS!! AND I am now going to scoff them down with a nice glass of West Australian sauvignon blanc & some brown bread & butter. After that I am off to the Theatre Royal to watch & listen to Eight Hands for the Keyboard, the final concert of the MoFo Arts Festival.

So just see if I care about all these dummy spits by silly little boys who need to grow up into big men! Speaking of Big (?) Men, here's a story on our Sydney Morning Herald about David Beckham's Balls .... I kid you not!! Enjoy a laugh or two Ladies & Gentlemen, Girls & Boys!!! Don't ever say that Tiziano doesn't look after you and keep you amused!
B'SBs

Nein, lieber Martin. I haven't read any books on the murder of poor Meredith: I am waiting to see what is recommended and will then buy when I come to Europe in July. Postage on books from Europe is pretty horrific for us poor, far-away denizens of Oz.
Top Profile 

Offline TheFatCent


Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:43 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:32 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Wow. I do believe Deathfish was "rollin' with his homies" or something cuz that seemed pretty random. But what do I know, haven't been around long.

I've been taking this "Rhetoric and Culture" class in which we're currently covering the development of early Athenian rhetor. We read Gorigas's "Encomium of Helen" which is basically an account of how Gorigas wooed the assembly with his speech on why Helen should not be blamed for her actions (leaving Sparta with Paris, that silly, silly woman). This piece was basically written to show how language can be used as a functional power within the civil court system. It is a classic document pertaining to Roman rhetoric during early Sophists times and arguably to this present day. It is probably just coincidence that I think of AK when I read the "Encomium of Helen," but I can't help but think of Amanda's comparison of herself to Helen in her statement that "everyone seems to think [she's] the prettiest since Helen of Troy." Perhaps in her various "readings of the classics" she encountered Gorigas's defense of Helen.

For those who are interested, here is an online copy of the "Encomium of Helen:"

http://www.bemidjistate.edu/academics/d ... helen.html

And for those who don't want to read that stuffy old thing here is the lovely Wikipedia synopsis (Click on the section pertaining to the encomium):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias#Encomium_of_Helen

I know posters have discussed this specific instance of comparison as well as AK's other carefully constructed analogies. I particularly enjoyed the recent discussion of the AK phrase "mask of an assassin" as a "smoker of hashish." I think these instances are perhaps some of the most intriguing aspects of AK, whoever she is or is not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

fine wrote:
"A man hating platform"? Being a man I must have missed a lot of the subliminal messages in bygone posts. On reflection, hmmm,... was it the defense here of Amanda's rights to own (and use) that pink jackrabbit? So all these posted pictures of RABBITS are sending the secret message that our sisters should "do it for yourselves", which then makes us guys in this Perugia Rabbit Hutch....uh, gulp, obsolete? How could I have been so stoopid!

Hey, I also posted a picture of a rabbit (but mine is a girl rabbit). On second thought, mine IS sexually frustrated (since she has no boyfriend), so maybe there is a subliminal message?

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:24 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

French Mom wrote:
Speaking of the drugs used by AK and RS on the night of Meredith's murder, and after mentioning heroin laced marijuana earlier, it's occured to me that maybe AK and RS "only" drank alcohol and smoked cannabis, but that their cannabis was indeed laced with some foreign substance.

...

Could that be what happened to AK and RS, unwittingly or not? Or is it something that happens in the US but not so much in Europe?


In the 24 years I've lived in Europe, the only thing I've ever seen cannabis laced with is tobacco (actually, it's rare to NOT see it laced with tobacco).

I did once smoke a joint at a Grateful Dead concert in the late '70s that had been laced with PCP or something, but that was in upstate NY. Didn't make me violent or commit crimes though, rather it made me decide to go home to bed earlier than I had planned.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

TheFatCent wrote:
Wow. I do believe Deathfish was "rollin' with his homies" or something cuz that seemed pretty random. But what do I know, haven't been around long.

I've been taking this "Rhetoric and Culture" class in which we're currently covering the development of early Athenian rhetor. We read Gorigas's "Encomium of Helen" which is basically an account of how Gorigas wooed the assembly with his speech on why Helen should not be blamed for her actions (leaving Sparta with Paris, that silly, silly woman). This piece was basically written to show how language can be used as a functional power within the civil court system. It is a classic document pertaining to Roman rhetoric during early Sophists times and arguably to this present day. It is probably just coincidence that I think of AK when I read the "Encomium of Helen," but I can't help but think of Amanda's comparison of herself to Helen in her statement that "everyone seems to think [she's] the prettiest since Helen of Troy." Perhaps in her various "readings of the classics" she encountered Gorigas's defense of Helen.

For those who are interested, here is an online copy of the "Encomium of Helen:"

http://www.bemidjistate.edu/academics/d ... helen.html

And for those who don't want to read that stuffy old thing here is the lovely Wikipedia synopsis (Click on the section pertaining to the encomium):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias#Encomium_of_Helen

I know posters have discussed this specific instance of comparison as well as AK's other carefully constructed analogies. I particularly enjoyed the recent discussion of the AK phrase "mask of an assassin" as a "smoker of hashish." I think these instances are perhaps some of the most intriguing aspects of AK, whoever she is or is not.


Thanks for this, I am going to try and follow it up. A while back I mentioned the rhetoric that surrounded Knox, and the terms used by the prosecution. I had suggested that terms such as "luciferina" were unhelpful: the strategy of (pretty much literally) demonizing AK had the potential to backfire (The DARKNESS DESCENDING book actually suggests that it may have done, referring to a kind of backlash against the prosecution's summing up which the defence tried to capitalise on with the mocking Amanda the Ripper riposte). Someone pointed out that this kind of flowery language which some of us might find alienating might actually be rooted in a cultural difference between Germanic and Romance languages, which I thought was a fascinating insight.

It also makes me wonder whether AK was trying to Italian herself up a bit more in her final statement, with that mask of the assassin routine.... which, in turn, seemed to do her no favours.

Finally, and rather randomly, with regard to the photo above of AK and friends, just wondering what a feminist is supposed to look like. And whether I need a sex change to start looking more like one myself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

That was beautifully written, Bard. And, in some small way, feel a little vindicated:) I was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya, on the banning!:):) And I am hoping, that with the slander case going forward with AK, that it's a sign that the judicial system is not going to back down.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:09 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

oh yes, and props to the Bard from me, too. Nice one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

You know Windfall, I myself thought that the terminology "mask of an assassin" was given to her by her attorneys. As assassin might come across to the jury as excessive , her being a female, and therefore discount her as being responsible. Whereas , if she had said something like, I don't want to be branded as a killer, well, there are plenty of women killers. And that COULD pertain to her. I enjoy your posts a lot. btw.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:21 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
You know Windfall, I myself thought that the terminology "mask of an assassin" was given to her by her attorneys. As assassin might come across to the jury as excessive , her being a female, and therefore discount her as being responsible. Whereas , if she had said something like, I don't want to be branded as a killer, well, there are plenty of women killers. And that COULD pertain to her. I enjoy your posts a lot. btw.


Thank you.

Yes, I think you are probably right - I imagine this was a line given to her. There are interesting levels of displacement going on, as you say: assassin rather than killer or murderer; mask instead of reality.... I wonder if any Italian speakers on the board can parse the exact term AK used (translated as assassin) and confirm that it has similar connotations to that word in English.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

..and it's not me who got banned....a shocker! 8-)

rip Meredith Kercher
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

YET!!!! :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
YET!!!! :)


nah...this won't happen :P no?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Salamander


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 23

Highscores: 3

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bolint wrote:
Quote:
The Machine wrote:
Raffaele Sollecito admitted that he hadn't called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage:
...
"She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. ...
(The Times, 7 November, 2007)."


That translation left out a key phrase from the Italian:
"Mia sorella mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, cosa che io ho fatto, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale"
(La Stampa Nov 7 2007)
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSez ... girata.asp

So actually it was:
"My sister told me to call 112, what i did, but in the meantime the postal police arrived."

In my understanding "but in the meantime" refers to the fact that the postals arrived first not the carabineri called. (And it specifically should not be translated as "at that moment").

Playing devil's advocate on this one, couldn't he also have meant "I called the police, but in the meantime (i.e. while they were waiting, and before the carabiniere had time to get there) the postal police turned up?" Admittedly, either translation is possible, and my first interpretation was the same as yours.

ETA: Actually, having re-read the post I quoted, I'm not clear as to whether bolint is actually suggesting the same thing as me here! So possibly I'm supporting what he/she is saying, rather than contradicting it... :?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Salamander wrote:
Quote:
That translation left out a key phrase from the Italian:
"Mia sorella mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, cosa che io ho fatto, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale"
(La Stampa Nov 7 2007)
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSez ... girata.asp

So actually it was:
"My sister told me to call 112, what i did, but in the meantime the postal police arrived."

In my understanding "but in the meantime" refers to the fact that the postals arrived first not the carabineri called. (And it specifically should not be translated as "at that moment").

Playing devil's advocate on this one, couldn't he also have meant "I called the police, but in the meantime (i.e. while they were waiting, and before the carabiniere had time to get there) the postal police turned up?" Admittedly, either translation is possible, and my first interpretation was the same as yours.

ETA: Actually, having re-read the post I quoted, I'm not clear as to whether bolint is actually suggesting the same thing as me here! So possibly I'm supporting what he/she is saying, rather than contradicting it... :?


This is RS's cellphone record from the time we're discussing:



(Ignore the red circle. It was drawn onto the original image by someone trying to make a different point).

If you're going to go with that line of reasoning then the Polizia would have arrived after 12:55. Then there's a problem, though, because Filomena's boyfriend and another fellow were already there by 1:00 pm. The Polizia didn't report seeing them at the cottage when they got there.

It's certainly in the interests of the culprits to claim they'd already contacted the Carabinieri before the Polizia arrived but you run into a worse timing problem than if they arrived "too early".

What's worse is that AK's 12:47 call makes even less sense in that scenario. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong but she made that call before RS phoned his sister.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

stilicho wrote:
Salamander wrote:
Quote:
That translation left out a key phrase from the Italian:
"Mia sorella mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, cosa che io ho fatto, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale"
(La Stampa Nov 7 2007)
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSez ... girata.asp

So actually it was:
"My sister told me to call 112, what i did, but in the meantime the postal police arrived."

In my understanding "but in the meantime" refers to the fact that the postals arrived first not the carabineri called. (And it specifically should not be translated as "at that moment").

Playing devil's advocate on this one, couldn't he also have meant "I called the police, but in the meantime (i.e. while they were waiting, and before the carabiniere had time to get there) the postal police turned up?" Admittedly, either translation is possible, and my first interpretation was the same as yours.

ETA: Actually, having re-read the post I quoted, I'm not clear as to whether bolint is actually suggesting the same thing as me here! So possibly I'm supporting what he/she is saying, rather than contradicting it... :?


This is RS's cellphone record from the time we're discussing:



(Ignore the red circle. It was drawn onto the original image by someone trying to make a different point).

If you're going to go with that line of reasoning then the Polizia would have arrived after 12:55. Then there's a problem, though, because Filomena's boyfriend and another fellow were already there by 1:00 pm. The Polizia didn't report seeing them at the cottage when they got there.

It's certainly in the interests of the culprits to claim they'd already contacted the Carabinieri before the Polizia arrived but you run into a worse timing problem than if they arrived "too early".

What's worse is that AK's 12:47 call makes even less sense in that scenario. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong but she made that call before RS phoned his sister.



And there is a lot more detail like this which will come out in the sentencing report:

The arrival time of the postal police was a very contentious issue, and we know the prosecution used the clock from the car park camera, past which the postal police drove, to confirm their claimed arrival time.

I don't know from which direction Filomena's boyfriend arrived but you've only got to look at a street map to realise that Filomena herself drove past that same car park camera to get to the cottage. I suspect it's clock confirms her arrival at just before 1pm, some minutes after her boyfriend had arrived there.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

windfall wrote:
Thanks for this, I am going to try and follow it up. A while back I mentioned the rhetoric that surrounded Knox, and the terms used by the prosecution. I had suggested that terms such as "luciferina" were unhelpful: the strategy of (pretty much literally) demonizing AK had the potential to backfire (The DARKNESS DESCENDING book actually suggests that it may have done, referring to a kind of backlash against the prosecution's summing up which the defence tried to capitalise on with the mocking Amanda the Ripper riposte). Someone pointed out that this kind of flowery language which some of us might find alienating might actually be rooted in a cultural difference between Germanic and Romance languages, which I thought was a fascinating insight.


Yes, but I thought we established earlier in the thread that 'luciferina' doesn't mean in Italian quite what you thought it did.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I am glad to see this making the news. As many of you know, my original interest in the Perugia murder was the shocking (but false) revelations in the Seattle media of the near torture AK was subjected to during the investigation. It went from 41+ hours intense interrogation while deprived of all rights to, nearer the truth, AK learning that RS had changed his alibi and very quickly deciding on the new tactic of naming Mr Lumumba as Meredith's killer.

It may be merely symbolic but it's an important step in establishing the truth about the investigation.


I don't think it is merely symbolic. The allegations are serious and have been vigorously denied. They need to be decided once and for all. The latest move, IMO, is a logical outgrowth of the verdict. I think the starting point for all of this was Amanda's colorful letters from prison, sent to Madison and others.


They do sound serious.

If I'm not mistaken, you can say all kinds of things about the authorities here and they won't charge you with slander. I take it there is a difference in law in Italy. Or am I mistaken? If you told people here (or in the US) that the police brutalised you but you weren't brutalised, would they charge you?

And, by "symbolic", I probably ought to have asked this instead: Is it possible or even likely that AK could be found guilty of slander but that no penalty would be applied?


In Italy it's different. Americans I think have gotten used to the idea that just because someone is in a position of power they are completely fair game and one can accuse them of whatever they like, no matter how groundless it may be. In Italy, all people are classed as citizens and therefore all have the same rights under the law. You also have to remember this difference because it's 'key'....slander/libel/defamation in the US are purely 'civil' offences. The onus is therefore on the offended individual to take out a suit themselves. In Italy, they are classed as 'criminal' offences. When an allegation of a 'crime' has been made, the state always has to act. It also must be remembered, that the people Knox accused were subjected to damage to their professional reputations since they were identified via the process of the trial. Knox didn't name them, neither did her parents, but they didn't have to...those officers all took the stand and so their names were all published in the media.

It must also be pointed out here that proceedings have merely been filed against both Knox and her parents. They still have to be examined by a judge who may decide to 'archive' them (so no further action) or, commit them to trial and if they pass that hurdle they still have to be found guilty in their resulting trial. So, there's quite a few hurdles yet. Many people in certain places are screaming as though they've already been committed to trial, tried and found guilty. It is simply the beginning of a process and we'll have to see how far that process goes. It seems the greatest offence by the Italians in the eyes of some, is that their laws and system is not the same as that of the US and they should jolly well change their laws and system to an American one when dealing with US citizens, but they're not, they're treating them like Italians...how dare they!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Salamander


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 23

Highscores: 3

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thanks to Brian S. and Stilicho for the info on the cell phone calls provided above. I would still argue that going only on that particular comment from RS (the contentious 'in the meantime' remark) he could plausibly have been saying that he called the carabinieri and then 'in the meantime', while they were waiting, the postal police arrived - obviously, this is an entirely separate issue from the facts of when the cell phone calls were made. He could easily have been lying, so I'm not suggesting the call to the police wasn't made after the postal police's arrival, merely that an alternative interpretation of that particular remark is possible.

Brian S. wrote:
I don't know from which direction Filomena's boyfriend arrived but you've only got to look at a street map to realise that Filomena herself drove past that same car park camera to get to the cottage. I suspect it's clock confirms her arrival at just before 1pm, some minutes after her boyfriend had arrived there.


I'm very interested indeed to know if Filomena was seen on CCTV camera too; it would certainly clear a lot of things up! :)


Last edited by Salamander on Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
windfall wrote:
Thanks for this, I am going to try and follow it up. A while back I mentioned the rhetoric that surrounded Knox, and the terms used by the prosecution. I had suggested that terms such as "luciferina" were unhelpful: the strategy of (pretty much literally) demonizing AK had the potential to backfire (The DARKNESS DESCENDING book actually suggests that it may have done, referring to a kind of backlash against the prosecution's summing up which the defence tried to capitalise on with the mocking Amanda the Ripper riposte). Someone pointed out that this kind of flowery language which some of us might find alienating might actually be rooted in a cultural difference between Germanic and Romance languages, which I thought was a fascinating insight.


Yes, but I thought we established earlier in the thread that 'luciferina' doesn't mean in Italian quite what you thought it did.


It's quite possible that I missed a post or two - I try to keep up, honest I do! - but I don't remember anything definitive being deduced from that discussion, although a number of possible connotations were aired. What I had deduced (and I may be wrong) was that it did mean literally she-devil, but that it might be used in a casual sense, in the same way we might say, "those kids ate all the cookies - the little devils!". It seems unlikely that the prosecution would be deploying the term in such a way, and I have found the discussion of heightened language - rhetoric - more convincing. I am not pushing an agenda on this point, just looking for answers. Or at least a range of possibilities.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

A little bit more about that car park clock.

Cameras scanned every car entering the car park and recorded their registration number. It also had a barrier exit. (The police used this information to trace the owner of EVERY car {they spoke to them all} which was in the car park on the night of the murder)

I suspect people had to feed a machine, according to their length of their stay, on the way out to make the barrier lift.

We know the camera clock was a few minutes out (the police gave it's inaccuracy to the second) and I don't suppose people who used the car park took much notice of a minute or two when the system told them how much it wanted to charge them. I assume it was on a from/to basis.

But you can sure as hell bet that the car park authorities would have had complaints from motorists if that clock was wildly out.


Last edited by Brian S. on Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
You know Windfall, I myself thought that the terminology "mask of an assassin" was given to her by her attorneys. As assassin might come across to the jury as excessive , her being a female, and therefore discount her as being responsible. Whereas , if she had said something like, I don't want to be branded as a killer, well, there are plenty of women killers. And that COULD pertain to her. I enjoy your posts a lot. btw.


In Italian, assassino is simply the word for 'murderer'. So in effect she was saying the 'mask of a murderer'. In English we have a separate word for assassin and for murderer, so in English it causes confusion.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
..and it's not me who got banned....a shocker! 8-)

rip Meredith Kercher


There's still time sc-))

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
capealadin wrote:
You know Windfall, I myself thought that the terminology "mask of an assassin" was given to her by her attorneys. As assassin might come across to the jury as excessive , her being a female, and therefore discount her as being responsible. Whereas , if she had said something like, I don't want to be branded as a killer, well, there are plenty of women killers. And that COULD pertain to her. I enjoy your posts a lot. btw.


In Italian, assassino is simply the word for 'murderer'. So in effect she was saying the 'mask of a murderer'. Rn English we have a separate word for assassin and for murderer, so in English it causes confusion.


Thanks, that's a really helpful clarification.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. - "We know the camera clock was a few minutes out (the police gave it's inaccuracy to the second)'

If this is so, there can be no argument. I believe that the defence tried to make something of the inaccuracy of the clock. I also believe that they were not seen as convincing. I may be wrong here. However, if there is CCTV evidence and if the clock discrepancy has been verified, then what is the debate about? Do we know the CCTV time? Do we no the inaccuracy to second? If so what are they?
Or am I missing something?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
donnie wrote:
..and it's not me who got banned....a shocker! 8-)

rip Meredith Kercher


There's still time sc-))



Stop it - I just nearly lost a Logitech G15 keyboard (holiday today - at home) due to the spontaneous exhalation of coffee :)

OT - While we're establishing our feminist credentials, let me recount: 2nd year politics (first degree - the law was a conversion in mid 20's), I took a feminism module for a term. In the first lesson we were supposed to have read some Dworkin but unfortunately I had been rocking the band I was in at the time a little too hard the night before and hadn't read a thing. The tutor, smelling blood in the water, turned to me during the lesson and said "so what would be your summary of Dworkin's main points?". Looking like I'd been blown through a hedge backwards by an RPG to the face (it had been a big night), I flicked my rock 'n' roll hair out of my face (and where did all *that* go huh?) and said "I think he had some very valid points".

The silence was deafening

Andrea Dworkin continues to have an international reputation for feminist writing that somewhat dwarves mine. wh-)

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
donnie wrote:
..and it's not me who got banned....a shocker! 8-)

rip Meredith Kercher


There's still time sc-))


...for me to do well!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hi Bilko, the camera shot shows the police going past the carpark, not parking up and entering the cottage. Hence the opportunity for some to claim they were heading for lunch, lost etc.
Top Profile 

Offline gardner


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:37 pm

Posts: 46

Location: Ohio USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
gardner wrote:
Hi All,

Has this been noted here? Amanda Knox being invesitgated by the prosecution for slander?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ama ... id=9622657


Hi Gardner,
Michael linked to an article yesterday on this topic but not ABC. Thanks for the link!


Thanks Skep oop-)
I had to add my comments to that ABC story a few minutes ago....I feel it is so important to keep the truth out there, to counter all the PR firms efforts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

nowo wrote:
Hi Bilko, the camera shot shows the police going past the carpark, not parking up and entering the cottage. Hence the opportunity for some to claim they were heading for lunch, lost etc.


Well, this is the PDF I've embedded here (tee hee) of the video camera showing arrival times. This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial and he rejected their argument after considering the police evidence. Simply use the vertical scroll bar on the right side of the PDF to skim through the video...the faster you scroll, the faster the video runs:



_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I'm just embedding Viadellapergola's latest excellent offering on Youtube, using PMF's new big, widescreen Youtube video switch I've coded to the board:



The Micheli Report ? [Meredith Kercher's case]


_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
capealadin wrote:
You know Windfall, I myself thought that the terminology "mask of an assassin" was given to her by her attorneys. As assassin might come across to the jury as excessive , her being a female, and therefore discount her as being responsible. Whereas , if she had said something like, I don't want to be branded as a killer, well, there are plenty of women killers. And that COULD pertain to her. I enjoy your posts a lot. btw.


In Italian, assassino is simply the word for 'murderer'. So in effect she was saying the 'mask of a murderer'. In English we have a separate word for assassin and for murderer, so in English it causes confusion.


Does anyone else think RG and RS may have been wearing masks when they attacted MK, there would have been a lot of them around from the previous night, and if it was dark and she didn't know them that well she may have been killed when she recognised one of them? maybe AK let them in and fused the lights and not being involved with the initial attack didn't need or knew she wouldn't have got away with a disguise. Is it a subtle hint when she says don't lable me with the mask of an assassin? nin-) nin-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thanks Michael fot the PDF file and the youtube video. Very helpful
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"If this is so, there can be no argument."

But it is not so.
During the trial the police witnesses could not explain how they had conluded the time difference between the clock of the parking CCTV and true time.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bolint wrote:
"If this is so, there can be no argument."

But it is not so.
During the trial the police witnesses could not explain how they had conluded the time difference between the clock of the parking CCTV and true time.


What 'was' their explanation then Bolint? Run it by us and refresh our memories once again.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bolint wrote:
"If this is so, there can be no argument."

But it is not so.
During the trial the police witnesses could not explain how they had conluded the time difference between the clock of the parking CCTV and true time.


But Bolint,

The police said the clock was fast by some minutes and seconds (recorded time approx 12:36). They concluded the postal police car had passed the car park shortly before 12:30.

Were you in court for the hours of argument that were had over this, or do you have a trial transcript?

Do you believe that Filomena's boyfriend and his friend took over 30 minutes to get to the cottage from approx a mile away?

Do you believe Filomena and her friend took 45 minutes to drive 2km?

Both above based on the timing of mobile phone calls: AK/FR FR/Boyfriend.

Do you believe those 4 are lying about their approximate arrival times?

Remember, the postal police arrived well before these people, they'd already spoken to AK and RS and looked around the house before any of these people arrived on the scene.


Last edited by Brian S. on Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Slightly OT, but in relation to luciferina... a neighbour commenting on the two boys (aged around 10-11 at the time) just sentenced for their horrific attack on two other children of a similar age....

"I'm still shocked at what they did in the end. I knew they were little devils but I never thought they'd go that far. I never knew there was any sort of evil in them. When I think about how much time they spent here, I sometimes think, 'It could have happened to my family'."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/2 ... n-brothers
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial "

No, it was discussed in the trial (about March 13) at the hearing od the police witnesses and was fully presented just before the summer vacation.
(And i guess that it was used in the closing argument of the defense and that's why the prosecution came out with the new version)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bolint wrote:
"This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial "

No, it was discussed in the trial (about March 13) at the hearing od the police witnesses and was fully presented just before the summer vacation.
(And i guess that it was used in the closing argument of the defense and that's why the prosecution came out with the new version)


They may well have presented it again in the main trial. But then, they presented quite a few things that had already been examined and rejected by Micheli.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"Il giudice Mignini e il poliziotto-scrittore Michele Giuttari sono stati condannati dal tribunale di Firenze rispettivamente a un anno e quattro mesi e un anno e sei mesi per abuso d’ufficio"

"Pm Mignini and Police officer-writer Michele Giuttari have been condemned by the Florence Tribunal to one year and four months and one year and six months respectively for abuse of office"
Il Giornale
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

That banging sound.


Amanda and Raffaele BOTH incorporated into their respective stories their alleged failed attempt to force open Meredith's door. On the one hand, this is an implausible story because either one could have kicked open the door if they had wished. So the story is very likely false. On the other hand, it's hard to see why they ATTACHED such importance to this implausible story.....so they tried and failed to force the door or, alternatively, so they didn't try....who cares? It's not incriminating either way. Or is it.

Well, it is an important element, because of it's diversionary force. On November 2, by 1:00 PM the Postal police have arrived at the cottage, and also Filomena and her three friends. Meredith's door is locked, but the door is cracked. Hmm. Why would Amanda and Raffaele wish to assume responsibility for THAT damage, and in so doing DATE the damage as occurrring a few moments earlier? Well, if the damage---and noise---had occured the night before that would have corroborated Kokomani's version of events for the night before. If Kokomani is telling the truth, he is the ONE AND ONLY witness that all three suspects were at the cottage that night, and the suspects knew this, and all four out on the street that night heard that banging sound.

The door damage was probably caused by Meredith herself, while she was locked in her room and the three suspects were outside committing their carjacking prank. She wasn't able to escape because of an asymmetry in door construction noted (above) by SomeAlibi. Any healthy person can kick OPEN a bedroom door, in the direction the door is designed to swing (into the room). Difficult to break it down when you're locked inside however....then your force is resisted not just by the bolt but by the door framing as well as the hinges. (Look at a door in your home for proof.) In a situation like THIS it's the door that's first to fail. Or crack. The evidence that someone tried ---and FAILED---to break down the door is evidence that it was Meredith. And also evidence that Kokomani was right.

///


Last edited by fine on Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Google translation of Jools' linked article:






Surveys show Florence, Perugia and pm sentenced Giuttari Mignini

Mignini the judge and the policeman-writer Michael Giuttari were convicted by the court of Florence at one year and four months to one year and six months for abuse of office


irenze - Two convicted. E 'finished so the process that saw the defendants Giuliano Mignini and the policeman-writer Michael Giuttari. Were sentenced to one year and four months to one year and six months by the Court of Florence for abuse of office and the magistrate, even for aiding against Giuttari. The story refers to the judicial investigation into the death of the doctor Perugia Narducci, tied to the monster of Florence: surveys that saw committed Giuttari, former head of the investigating serial crimes, who worked side by side with the prosecution and the Perugino Florentine. Mignini was the owner magistrate in Perugia of Meredith Kercher murder investigation: the story of English is not a student has nothing to do with the process, which closed today.

Accusations Prosecutor Florentine holder of investigations, Luca Turkish, had requested sentences of 10 months for Mignini and two and a half years Giuttari. According to the prosecutor in Florence, Giuttari and Mignini would conduct criminal investigations, with interceptions or with the opening of files, some police officers (including former quaestor of Florence Giuseppe De Donno and former director of external relations Roberto Sgalla) and journalist (as Vincent Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano and Roberto Fiasconaro) with intent to influence or punitive in their work, why would keep critical attitudes toward the behavior of Giuttari with the press or on the investigation into the death of Francis Medical Perugia Narducci.

Acquittal Mignini and Giuttari were cleared of "why the fact there is no" accusation of abuse of office (and also to facilitate Mignini against Giuttari) concerning findings parallel those of the Prosecutor of Genoa, who was investigating for Giuttari false, on his recording of a conversation between him and the Florentine pm Canessa. At the time headed the Giuttari Gides, while Canessa coordinated investigation on the part of Tuscany

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

As soon as you get the chance, could one of our translators very kindly render a full and proper translation of the article Jools linked. Much appreciated.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
bolint wrote:
"If this is so, there can be no argument."

But it is not so.
During the trial the police witnesses could not explain how they had conluded the time difference between the clock of the parking CCTV and true time.


But Bolint,

The police said the clock was fast by some minutes and seconds (recorded time approx 12:36). They concluded the postal police car had passed the car park shortly before 12:30.

Were you in court for the hours of argument that were had over this, or do you have a trial transcript?

Do you believe that Filomena's boyfriend and his friend took over 30 minutes to get to the cottage from approx a mile away?

Do you believe Filomena and her friend took 45 minutes to drive 2km?

Both above based on the timing of mobile phone calls: AK/FR FR/Boyfriend.

Do you believe those 4 are lying about their approximate arrival times?

Remember, the postal police arrived well before these people, they'd already spoken to AK and RS and looked around the house before any of these people arrived on the scene.


And didn't the Postal Police also call-in to their station at approximately 12:30 to report their arrival at the house?
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

From stewarthome2000"s March 13th, 2009 post" (stewarthome2000 was an Italian speaker who actually attended the trial for some time and posted summaries of the testimony there) This post was in reference to testimony on March 13th.

"The argument was over the system that caused the CCTV to start filming.

If a person walks by on the street or a car passes by the road, the CCTV is not activated,

but if they come in the garage whether it be a car or person, the CCTV begins recording and continues at least 30 seconds AFTER the car or person has left the "radar" area.

Hence you will see scenes of people walking on the street and cars going by only if a car or person set the CCTV off and then left the field of vision."

The timing of the CCTV camera is not that important because there is no way of knowing if the car said to belong to the postal police (a dark-colored Punto, not exactly uncommon in Italy) which appeared at a specified time was theirs or just a random Punto that happened to be in the vicinity when the camera was activated or if the carabinieri vehicle shown on the film was actually the first to arrive. There isn't a filmed record of every police vehicle (or officer) that passed by on Via della Pergola that day, only of those that happened to be there when there was activity within the garage. It was all random chance hence it doesn't prove anything about when specific police types arrived.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Old Franky boy has a post up about Mignini. He also uses the photo that makes Amanda Knox look most insane to illustrate...what? Her joy at Mignini's conviction? I couldn't bear to check out the comment section.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

fine wrote:
That banging sound.


Amanda and Raffaele BOTH incorporated into their respective stories their alleged failed attempt to force open Meredith's door. On the one hand, this is an implausible story because either one could have kicked open the door if they had wished. So the story is very likely false. On the other hand, it's hard to see why they ATTACHED such importance to this implausible story.....so they tried and failed to force the door or, alternatively, so they didn't try....who cares? It's not incriminating either way. Or is it.

Well, it is an important element, because of it's diversionary force. On November 2, by 1:00 PM the Postal police have arrived at the cottage, and also Filomena and her three friends. Meredith's door is locked, but the door is cracked. Hmm. Why would Amanda and Raffaele wish to assume responsibility for THAT damage, and in so doing DATE the damage as occurrring a few moments earlier? Well, if the damage---and noise---had occured the night before that would have corroborated Kokomani's version of events for the night before. If Kokomani is telling the truth, he is the ONE AND ONLY witness that all three suspects were at the cottage that night, and the suspects knew this, and all four out on the street that night heard that banging sound.

The door damage was probably caused by Meredith herself, while she was locked in her room and the three suspects were outside committing their carjacking prank. She wasn't able to escape because of an asymmetry in door construction noted (above) by SomeAlibi. Any healthy person can kick OPEN a bedroom door, in the direction the door is designed to swing. Difficult to break it down when you're locked inside however....then your force is resisted not just by the bolt but by the door framing as well as the hinges. (Look at a door in your home for proof.) In a situation like THIS it's the door that's first to fail. Or crack. The evidence that someone tried ---and FAILED---to break down the door is evidence that it was Meredith. And also evidence that Kokomani was right.

///


You have a good point here, very interesting take on the door case. But was the door damaged also from the inside? I saw the pictures of the outside only.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Google translation of Jools' linked article:



Surveys show Florence, Perugia and pm sentenced Giuttari Mignini

Mignini the judge and the policeman-writer Michael Giuttari were convicted by the court of Florence at one year and four months to one year and six months for abuse of office


irenze - Two convicted. E 'finished so the process that saw the defendants Giuliano Mignini and the policeman-writer Michael Giuttari. Were sentenced to one year and four months to one year and six months by the Court of Florence for abuse of office and the magistrate, even for aiding against Giuttari. The story refers to the judicial investigation into the death of the doctor Perugia Narducci, tied to the monster of Florence: surveys that saw committed Giuttari, former head of the investigating serial crimes, who worked side by side with the prosecution and the Perugino Florentine. Mignini was the owner magistrate in Perugia of Meredith Kercher murder investigation: the story of English is not a student has nothing to do with the process, which closed today.

Accusations Prosecutor Florentine holder of investigations, Luca Turkish, had requested sentences of 10 months for Mignini and two and a half years Giuttari. According to the prosecutor in Florence, Giuttari and Mignini would conduct criminal investigations, with interceptions or with the opening of files, some police officers (including former quaestor of Florence Giuseppe De Donno and former director of external relations Roberto Sgalla) and journalist (as Vincent Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano and Roberto Fiasconaro) with intent to influence or punitive in their work, why would keep critical attitudes toward the behavior of Giuttari with the press or on the investigation into the death of Francis Medical Perugia Narducci.

Acquittal Mignini and Giuttari were cleared of "why the fact there is no" accusation of abuse of office (and also to facilitate Mignini against Giuttari) concerning findings parallel those of the Prosecutor of Genoa, who was investigating for Giuttari false, on his recording of a conversation between him and the Florentine pm Canessa. At the time headed the Giuttari Gides, while Canessa coordinated investigation on the part of Tuscany


Oh dear, let's get our tin helmets ready for the barrage of spin from Seattle !
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Oh dear, let's get our tin helmets ready for the barrage of spin from Seattle !


That's what i was thinking...It will be a mess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Oh dear, let's get our tin helmets ready for the barrage of spin from Seattle !


Oh, that's already started, even though they don't know what he's actually been convicted 'of'. And of course, since it has nothing to do with the Meredith Kercher case it doesn't effect that at all.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
bolint wrote:
"If this is so, there can be no argument."

But it is not so.
During the trial the police witnesses could not explain how they had conluded the time difference between the clock of the parking CCTV and true time.


But Bolint,

The police said the clock was fast by some minutes and seconds (recorded time approx 12:36). They concluded the postal police car had passed the car park shortly before 12:30.

Were you in court for the hours of argument that were had over this, or do you have a trial transcript?

Do you believe that Filomena's boyfriend and his friend took over 30 minutes to get to the cottage from approx a mile away?

Do you believe Filomena and her friend took 45 minutes to drive 2km?

Both above based on the timing of mobile phone calls: AK/FR FR/Boyfriend.

Do you believe those 4 are lying about their approximate arrival times?

Remember, the postal police arrived well before these people, they'd already spoken to AK and RS and looked around the house before any of these people arrived on the scene.


And didn't the Postal Police also call-in to their station at approximately 12:30 to report their arrival at the house?



Yes.

Aren't most of us wage slaves? :lol: :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

windfall wrote:
capealadin wrote:
You know Windfall, I myself thought that the terminology "mask of an assassin" was given to her by her attorneys. As assassin might come across to the jury as excessive , her being a female, and therefore discount her as being responsible. Whereas , if she had said something like, I don't want to be branded as a killer, well, there are plenty of women killers. And that COULD pertain to her. I enjoy your posts a lot. btw.


Thank you.

Yes, I think you are probably right - I imagine this was a line given to her. There are interesting levels of displacement going on, as you say: assassin rather than killer or murderer; mask instead of reality.... I wonder if any Italian speakers on the board can parse the exact term AK used (translated as assassin) and confirm that it has similar connotations to that word in English.



Hello! I think it was the prison priest who had inspired Amanda in that case. He had told her not to put up a mask.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:02 pm   Post subject: 112 calls   

Hello everyone.

I would like to give a detailed analysis of the timeline concerning Raffaele's 112 calls to the carabinieri, using the defense document that Michael posted at 1:43 pm. I believe that combining the CCTV camera footage and Amanda's phone records, as Bongiorno does in this document, provides a convincing argument that the postal police arrived at the cottage just after Raffaele had finished calling 112 for the second time. I give the complete analysis below. If I (or Bongiorno) have made an error in reasoning, I would be happy for it to be pointed out to me.

Bolint pointed out yesterday that Manuela Comodi declared on the last day of the trial that the postal police had arrived at the cottage at 12:46 and were present when Raffaele made his 112 calls. The time cited of 12:46 was reiterated in a number of press releases, I noted it also at that time. This fact, if accepted/confirmed, would seem to indicate that Manuela Comodi has abandoned the idea previously expressed by the prosecution that the postal police arrived at 12:35 or 12:26 or the various other times frequently mentioned here, and therefore abandoned the claim that the CCTV camera showed a time that was 10 minutes later than true time.

Whether Raffaele called 112 before or after the arrival of the postal police has no bearing whatsoever on the question of his or Amanda's guilt in what concerns the murder of Meredith. They have lied frequently and that evidence (as well as the rest) is very damning. Nevertheless, a lot of time is spent here trying to reconstruct as carefully as possible all events concerning the murder, including those of the morning of November 2, and it would be nice to obtain at least some level of certainty one way or another on this question (not based on the oft-cited and oft-truncated phrase "Mia sorella mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, cosa che io ho fatto, ma nel frattempo e arrivata la polizia postale", which as stilicho and bolint have already pointed out, can equally well mean that the postal police arrived between Raffaele's call to the carabinieri and their arrival).

I found that bolint's posts raised an interesting point, and it seems worth explaining the evidence and the reasoning in the completest possible way.

CCTV CAMERA EVENTS FILMED WITH CCTV TIME ENTRIES:

The parking lot camera only starts filming when someone enters or exits the parking lot. Therefore passages by various cars and people in the street outside may not have been filmed.

12:36: black Fiat Punto passes from left to right.
12:41: black Fiat Punto passes again from left to right.

Either the two black Fiat Puntos are not the same ones, or the postal
police's car passed back from right to left in between without being filmed,
while searching.

The second black Fiat Punto passes straight along the road, without pulling
over to park in front of Meredith's house (as the carabinieri's car does
later).

Seconds after it passes, a figure appears in the film from the left walking
towards the right in the street, wearing dark pants and gym shoes. The
film stops.

12:48: The man with gym shoes and dark pants is still standing in the street, just across from Meredith's house. Another man appears from the left and stands for some seconds across the street on Meredith's side, just at the gate of the cottage, while the first man crosses over and joins him. The film stops.

13:22: A carabiniere (identifiable by the stripe on his pants) arrives on foot from the left, walking to the right. Seconds later, the carabinieri patrol car arrives from the left, pulls over and parks across the street, on Meredith's side, in full view of the CCTV. When the white car which has actually started off this bout of filming enters the parking lot and moves out of sight, the patrol car appears clearly, parked across the street with the word "Carabinieri" printed on its side.

AMANDA KNOX'S CELLPHONE RECORDS:

13:29 (real time confirmed by cell-phone records): indicate a call to Amanda's
phone by the carabinieri.

POSTAL POLICE DECLARATIONS IN COURT:

(1) Battistelli declared that he arrived at the house at a time estimated as between 12:25 and 12:35.

(2) He declared that he told Amanda and Raffaele who he was and why he was there and they told him about the bloodstains and locked door. He asked them for Meredith's phone numbers and Amanda wrote these down on a post-it and gave them to him. This occurred in the kitchen. This activity cannot have taken less than four or five minutes, perhaps more (they may have taken him around the house, or they may have done that after Marco and Luca arrived). When Marco and Luca arrived, they did find all four standing in the kitchen with phones and the post-it.

(3) Battistelli did not say that he saw any phone calls being made by Amanda or Raffaele, nor that they left him and Marzi alone at any time. One has the impression that the four talked together intensively for a very short period of time before Marco and Luca arrived.

(4) Battistelli further declared that at some point after the door had been knocked down, the carabinieri called on Raffaele's phone to ask for directions to the house, and that Raffaele handed him the phone. He talked to the carabinieri and explained exactly where the house was.

(5) The postal police declared that the CCTV camera time showed a time that was later than real time by about ten minutes (roughly corroborating a 12:30-12:35 arrival time, if one considers that Battistelli arrived at the cottage at the time he stopped in front of it (12:41 CCTV-camera time).) They certainly did not establish the actual time deviation to the second (sorry Brian S.), in fact they said something very doubtful about having checked it with a home computer.


BONGIORNO'S ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ABOVE:

The second Fiat Punto belongs to the postal police. It drove past the house (possibly back and forth, searching for the number) and then one occupant got out (wearing dark pants and gym shoes as Battistelli did) and walked over to check whether they were in the right place. The second occupant (Marzi) went a little farther, then pulled over somewhere out of sight of the CCTV camera and walked back to join the first one. At the time 12:48 marked on the CCTV camera, the two men appear to have crossed the road with the intention of entering the cottage gate.

The puzzle here is to fix the true time at which this event really occurred. If the CCTV camera showed a time 10 minutes later than true time, this means that Battistelli and Marzi arrived in front of the cottage at 12:31 and 12:38 respectively, which is close to what Battistelli testified.

However, Bongiorno notes that the carabinieri called Raffaele's phone for directions and received these directions from 13:29 to 13:34, and their patrol car pulled up in front of the house at a time marked on the CCTV camera as 13:22.

She therefore concludes that the time marked as 13:22 on the CCTV camera must in reality have been at about 13:30 at the very earliest, but probably more like 13:34, considering that the phone call is marked on the phone records as having lasted 5 minutes (296 seconds). Bongiorno concludes that the CCTV camera showed a time that was between 8 and 12 minutes earlier than true time.

This would mean that the first postal inspector visible at the time marked "12:41" really stopped in front of the house at or later than 12:49, the second one who joined him at "12:48" arrived in reality at or later than 12:56. Then together they walked down the path leading to the cottage. If so they arrived directly after the 112 calls had been made.


OBJECTIONS TO BONGIORNO'S ANALYSIS:

If one assumes that the postal police must have arrived before 12:50, then one has to believe either

(1) that the carabinieri, one on foot and a patrol car, pulled over and parked directly in front of the cottage at 13:12 (if you believe that the CCTV camera time of "13:22" is ten minutes later than real time) or 13:20 (if you believe, as Comodi appears to now, that the time marked "12:48" is in reality 12:46), then drove away and circulated up and down the via della Pergola for 17 minutes in the first case, 9 minutes in the second case, before finally phoning Raffaele for directions to the cottage at 13:29.

(2) or that the black Fiat Punto visible in the film at CCTV time marked "12:41" and the two men who join up in front of Meredith's house had nothing to do with the postal police, in defiance of the fact that the postal police themselves accepted that they and their car are visible there, disputing only the time of their appearance.

These two arguments seem implausible to me and that's why I'm not sure about the consensus on the 112 calls.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

beans wrote:
From stewarthome2000"s March 13th, 2009 post" (stewarthome2000 was an Italian speaker who actually attended the trial for some time and posted summaries of the testimony there) This post was in reference to testimony on March 13th.

"The argument was over the system that caused the CCTV to start filming.

If a person walks by on the street or a car passes by the road, the CCTV is not activated,

but if they come in the garage whether it be a car or person, the CCTV begins recording and continues at least 30 seconds AFTER the car or person has left the "radar" area.

Hence you will see scenes of people walking on the street and cars going by only if a car or person set the CCTV off and then left the field of vision."

The timing of the CCTV camera is not that important because there is no way of knowing if the car said to belong to the postal police (a dark-colored Punto, not exactly uncommon in Italy) which appeared at a specified time was theirs or just a random Punto that happened to be in the vicinity when the camera was activated or if the carabinieri vehicle shown on the film was actually the first to arrive. There isn't a filmed record of every police vehicle (or officer) that passed by on Via della Pergola that day, only of those that happened to be there when there was activity within the garage. It was all random chance hence it doesn't prove anything about when specific police types arrived.


Now, there are some people who thought(absolutely know) that Frank Sfarzo was got at during a visit by Chris Mellas in spring 2008. Some people may even claim to know the exact date. :lol:

Some people think that Stewarthome may have been an infiltrator from FOA or also "got at". Who am I to say?

'Course, everyone knows that PR agencies and advertisers tell the exact truth.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian wrote:

"The police said the clock was fast by some minutes and seconds (recorded time approx 12:36). They concluded the postal police car had passed the car park shortly before 12:30. "

But the prosecution now says that they arrived at the house about 12:46 so their whereabouts before that time is more or less irrelevenat. No talk about the clock being fast, anymore.

"Were you in court for the hours of argument that were had over this, or do you have a trial transcript?"

No, I wasn't. Stewart was.
On that day (March 13) he wrote:

Quote:
"The witness was there to testify about the CCTV images
...
stated that the time on the CCTV was actually 10 minutes late..hence an image captured at 8:50pm was really captured t 8:40pm
...
(Bongiorno) did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late ..."


So the police could not explain how the 10 minute difference was arrived at.


"Do you believe that Filomena's boyfriend and his friend took over 30 minutes to get to the cottage from approx a mile away?"

Whatever I may believe does not matter. It is a fact that the last call to Filomena was at 13:34 and she arrived "just before 1pm" (according to Paola), "at about 1pm" according to Filomena in the trial. So it took her at least 26 minutes. (But I don't see how this travel time changes anything.)

"Both above based on the timing of mobile phone calls: AK/FR FR/Boyfriend."

When was the FR/Boyfriend call? We don't know.

"Do you believe those 4 are lying about their approximate arrival times?"

No, I don't think at all that they are lying,
Anyway, when did the boys arrive? We don't know.

"Remember, the postal police arrived well before these people, they'd already spoken to AK and RS and looked around the house before any of these people arrived on the scene."

Yes. That is the problem.
There is no place for these things plus phone calls to happen in the new version of the prosecution.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
fine wrote:
That banging sound.


Amanda and Raffaele BOTH incorporated into their respective stories their alleged failed attempt to force open Meredith's door. On the one hand, this is an implausible story because either one could have kicked open the door if they had wished. So the story is very likely false. On the other hand, it's hard to see why they ATTACHED such importance to this implausible story.....so they tried and failed to force the door or, alternatively, so they didn't try....who cares? It's not incriminating either way. Or is it.

Well, it is an important element, because of it's diversionary force. On November 2, by 1:00 PM the Postal police have arrived at the cottage, and also Filomena and her three friends. Meredith's door is locked, but the door is cracked. Hmm. Why would Amanda and Raffaele wish to assume responsibility for THAT damage, and in so doing DATE the damage as occurrring a few moments earlier? Well, if the damage---and noise---had occured the night before that would have corroborated Kokomani's version of events for the night before. If Kokomani is telling the truth, he is the ONE AND ONLY witness that all three suspects were at the cottage that night, and the suspects knew this, and all four out on the street that night heard that banging sound.

The door damage was probably caused by Meredith herself, while she was locked in her room and the three suspects were outside committing their carjacking prank. She wasn't able to escape because of an asymmetry in door construction noted (above) by SomeAlibi. Any healthy person can kick OPEN a bedroom door, in the direction the door is designed to swing. Difficult to break it down when you're locked inside however....then your force is resisted not just by the bolt but by the door framing as well as the hinges. (Look at a door in your home for proof.) In a situation like THIS it's the door that's first to fail. Or crack. The evidence that someone tried ---and FAILED---to break down the door is evidence that it was Meredith. And also evidence that Kokomani was right.

///


You have a good point here, very interesting take on the door case. But was the door damaged also from the inside? I saw the pictures of the outside only.


Good question donnie. I hope someone here more knowledgable than I can answer it. My understanding is that the door was found "cracked" prior to being broken down. And ---for all I know---it may not be possible to say whether that was from inside or outside force. (Especially since that original crack may have been altered when the door was finally broken down.)

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
Google translation of Jools' linked article:



Surveys show Florence, Perugia and pm sentenced Giuttari Mignini

Mignini the judge and the policeman-writer Michael Giuttari were convicted by the court of Florence at one year and four months to one year and six months for abuse of office


irenze - Two convicted. E 'finished so the process that saw the defendants Giuliano Mignini and the policeman-writer Michael Giuttari. Were sentenced to one year and four months to one year and six months by the Court of Florence for abuse of office and the magistrate, even for aiding against Giuttari. The story refers to the judicial investigation into the death of the doctor Perugia Narducci, tied to the monster of Florence: surveys that saw committed Giuttari, former head of the investigating serial crimes, who worked side by side with the prosecution and the Perugino Florentine. Mignini was the owner magistrate in Perugia of Meredith Kercher murder investigation: the story of English is not a student has nothing to do with the process, which closed today.

Accusations Prosecutor Florentine holder of investigations, Luca Turkish, had requested sentences of 10 months for Mignini and two and a half years Giuttari. According to the prosecutor in Florence, Giuttari and Mignini would conduct criminal investigations, with interceptions or with the opening of files, some police officers (including former quaestor of Florence Giuseppe De Donno and former director of external relations Roberto Sgalla) and journalist (as Vincent Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano and Roberto Fiasconaro) with intent to influence or punitive in their work, why would keep critical attitudes toward the behavior of Giuttari with the press or on the investigation into the death of Francis Medical Perugia Narducci.

Acquittal Mignini and Giuttari were cleared of "why the fact there is no" accusation of abuse of office (and also to facilitate Mignini against Giuttari) concerning findings parallel those of the Prosecutor of Genoa, who was investigating for Giuttari false, on his recording of a conversation between him and the Florentine pm Canessa. At the time headed the Giuttari Gides, while Canessa coordinated investigation on the part of Tuscany


Oh dear, let's get our tin helmets ready for the barrage of spin from Seattle !



Ok, this post is going to be extremely unpopular, but I'm calling this with clinical coldness and precision so bear with me to the end:

We need to deal with this with great openness and equanimity. This conviction is extraordinarily serious and appalling. The number of public officials given custodial sentences for criminal abuse of office / total failings is extremely small and I'm afraid this utterly undermines the credibility of Mignini as a man regardless of it being a different case. The respect we have for the Italian justice system in its conviction of the three murderers must be equally applied to the finding against Mignini. It couldn't be worse. The man is utterly blown by this conviction and you should expect the most serious consequences coming out of it.

Does this negate the conviction of the three murderers? No. It may cause a great deal of trouble but it doesn't alter the fact that there was a prosecutorial team that presented the evidence and it was not a one man show. The case against the murderers can stand but this is a very very bad day and it will be a struggle to face down the firestorm that will now follow. Incredibly irritating because we all know the evidence is there but this will now be played upon hugely. What a complete and utter idiot this man is. Gah.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I think first, we need to to establish exactly 'what' it is he's been convicted of. We need more data. Then we'll be in a better position to assess.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Bea wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
bolint wrote:
"If this is so, there can be no argument."

But it is not so.
During the trial the police witnesses could not explain how they had conluded the time difference between the clock of the parking CCTV and true time.


But Bolint,

The police said the clock was fast by some minutes and seconds (recorded time approx 12:36). They concluded the postal police car had passed the car park shortly before 12:30.

Were you in court for the hours of argument that were had over this, or do you have a trial transcript?

Do you believe that Filomena's boyfriend and his friend took over 30 minutes to get to the cottage from approx a mile away?

Do you believe Filomena and her friend took 45 minutes to drive 2km?

Both above based on the timing of mobile phone calls: AK/FR FR/Boyfriend.

Do you believe those 4 are lying about their approximate arrival times?

Remember, the postal police arrived well before these people, they'd already spoken to AK and RS and looked around the house before any of these people arrived on the scene.


And didn't the Postal Police also call-in to their station at approximately 12:30 to report their arrival at the house?



Yes.

Aren't most of us wage slaves? :lol: :lol:


Yes, indeed. Policemen routinely have to call in to report their location. It's like "punching the clock" for them AND it gives a record of their movements in an investigation should that become important later (!!!).

That's why I've always wondered how the CCTV footage was made so important since there was an OFFICIAL record of their arrival time. "Officer X called to report arrival at Via Della Pergola", timestamped 12:30. At this point everyone thought they were only investigating lost cellphones, but they still made a report when they arrived at the second location in their investigation (first was the garden where they were found.)
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"Il giudice Mignini e il poliziotto-scrittore Michele Giuttari sono stati condannati dal tribunale di Firenze"

Well, Doug Preston will open a bottle of champaign today, I guess
... and appears on all TV shows in the next days

This is a PR disaster for this case.


Last edited by bolint on Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"there was an OFFICIAL record of their arrival time."

of which we didn't see anything in the triall.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I completely agree with this, SA. I do want to know what it was he was convicted of in detail: but whatever it was it does cast doubt on his professional integrity and it will sway a lot of people who were already doubtful about this case. Ananda's supporters will make the most of it and one can hardly blame them given they were already dubious about his methods etc.

A bad situation indeed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"Some people think that Stewarthome may have been an infiltrator from FOA "

Then he did a lousy work. Some of the best trial reporting (and not at all favourable for the defendants) were from him.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
Hello everyone.

I would like to give a detailed analysis of the timeline concerning Raffaele's 112 calls to the carabinieri, using the defense document that Michael posted at 1:43 pm. I believe that combining the CCTV camera footage and Amanda's phone records, as Bongiorno does in this document, provides a convincing argument that the postal police arrived at the cottage just after Raffaele had finished calling 112 for the second time. I give the complete analysis below. If I (or Bongiorno) have made an error in reasoning, I would be happy for it to be pointed out to me.


Hello Thoughtful. I don't have the time to go deeply into it right now, but Bongiorno's reasoning was found to be flawed on several counts. But just for example, the directions given via the phone to the carabinieri has been assumed by Bongiorno in her calculations to be the first car, when it could just as easily have been to a single unit straggler that had got lost while other carabinieri had already arrived at the cottage. I'm sure the carabinieri didn't all head off for the cottage in one long convoy. Moreover, as has been relayed, the car park camera does not show all arrivals at the cottage, the camera was only activated at certain times by people moving within the garage. No doubt, other events occurred while the garage camera was inactive.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bolint wrote:
Brian wrote:

"The police said the clock was fast by some minutes and seconds (recorded time approx 12:36). They concluded the postal police car had passed the car park shortly before 12:30. "

But the prosecution now says that they arrived at the house about 12:46 so their whereabouts before that time is more or less irrelevenat. No talk about the clock being fast, anymore.

"Were you in court for the hours of argument that were had over this, or do you have a trial transcript?"

No, I wasn't. Stewart was.
On that day (March 13) he wrote:

Quote:
"The witness was there to testify about the CCTV images
...
stated that the time on the CCTV was actually 10 minutes late..hence an image captured at 8:50pm was really captured t 8:40pm
...
(Bongiorno) did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late ..."


So the police could not explain how the 10 minute difference was arrived at.


See above comment/


Quote:
"Do you believe that Filomena's boyfriend and his friend took over 30 minutes to get to the cottage from approx a mile away?"

Whatever I may believe does not matter. It is a fact that the last call to Filomena was at 13:34 and she arrived "just before 1pm" (according to Paola), "at about 1pm" according to Filomena in the trial. So it took her at least 26 minutes. (But I don't see how this travel time changes anything.)

"Both above based on the timing of mobile phone calls: AK/FR FR/Boyfriend."

When was the FR/Boyfriend call? We don't know.


I bet the court know the timing of the call between FR and her boyfriend. Do you think this is the kind of detail the press report when they have to condense 8 hours into 3 paragraphs?
Quote:

"Do you believe those 4 are lying about their approximate arrival times?"

No, I don't think at all that they are lying,
Anyway, when did the boys arrive? We don't know.


Before Filomena, who you seem to accept arrived just before 1:00pm. Had time to talk to the police and make a mistake about the phones on the table before she got there.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The footage from the garage makes no sense to me. As I understood it the fact that the camera was about 10 minutes slow was demonstrated by the fact that it shows the carabinieri car arrive at 13:22 and this is at odds with the phone record of their call for directions. Presumably we can rely on the phone time?

I thought the camera recorded the postal police's arrival at 12:25 camera time: but that footage is not on that recording at all. I do not see anything which shows me that any of the earlier cars are police cars not that any of the figures shown are police officers. I do not see where Luca and his friend arrive and I do not see Filomena and her friend arrive.

If the police arrive at 12:56 as stated I cannot see at all how they can have achieved talking to AK and RS: talking to Luca and his friend:and talking to Filomena and hers all before they called their station at 1 pm. So is the timing of that phone call also in dispute? as well as Filomena's recollection of her time of arrival; and Luca's? and the police's ?

You need a lot more to be wrong if you accept this footage shows what is claimed and I see no reason to do that
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bolint wrote:
"Some people think that Stewarthome may have been an infiltrator from FOA "

Then he did a lousy work. Some of the best trial reporting (and not at all favourable for the defendants) were from him.


So you guarantee his accuracy - You were there?

A lesson for spies: First you establish your credentials, then you can do the real work.

Have you heard about phishing, getting people's email addresses and getting on mailing lists?


Last edited by Brian S. on Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Seattle PI is on it; new article by Andrea Vogt...

Also one on MyNorthwest
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Any proposal of a Postal Police arrival time of 12:56 is absolutely ridiculous.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Corrina wrote:
Seattle PI is on it; new article by Andrea Vogt...

Also one on MyNorthwest


Hi Corrina, do you have links for those?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:
The footage from the garage makes no sense to me. As I understood it the fact that the camera was about 10 minutes slow was demonstrated by the fact that it shows the carabinieri car arrive at 13:22 and this is at odds with the phone record of their call for directions. Presumably we can rely on the phone time?

I thought the camera recorded the postal police's arrival at 12:25 camera time: but that footage is not on that recording at all. I do not see anything which shows me that any of the earlier cars are police cars not that any of the figures shown are police officers. I do not see where Luca and his friend arrive and I do not see Filomena and her friend arrive.

If the police arrive at 12:56 as stated I cannot see at all how they can have achieved talking to AK and RS: talking to Luca and his friend:and talking to Filomena and hers all before they called their station at 1 pm. So is the timing of that phone call also in dispute? as well as Filomena's recollection of her time of arrival; and Luca's? and the police's ?

You need a lot more to be wrong if you accept this footage shows what is claimed and I see no reason to do that


Quite.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Oh Michael, I'm trying! New computer and for some reason I'm not able to cut and paste (and you know, I was getting so good at it)

http://seattlepi.com/local/414529_knox22.html
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Mignini Articles links

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/414529_knox22.html

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=274343
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Corrina wrote:
Oh Michael, I'm trying! New computer and for some reason I'm not able to cut and paste (and you know, I was getting so good at it)

http://seattlepi.com/local/414529_knox22.html


Thanks Corrina :)

Edit: and Stint7

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bolint,

I do believe you to be an honest broker of information on this board.

But, there are some things you don't know about which are peripheral to the crime.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=274343
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

From Andrea Vogt:

Quote:
On Friday, Mignini was given a suspended sentence of one year and four months, pending appeal.

He will be allowed to continue his regular duties.

The sentence was seen as a way of placating multiple powerful interest in Italy's longest running unsolved mystery, the Monster of Florence.

The charges from 2006 allegations of unauthorized wiretapping of journalists and others as crimes were being investigated related to the Monster of Florence serial killings in the 1970s and '80s.

The abuse-of-office charges against Mignini have made him a lightning rod for criticism from Knox's supporters, who argue that she was wrongly accused and convicted.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"A lesson for spies: First you establish your credentials, then you can do the real work."

But I don't see the "real work" part in stewart's feats.
He disappeared and we don't know why.
(But I definitely don't think he is a sleeping agent designed to explode the appeal trial. :D)

Surely he had links to some of the defense lawyers, he himself said that he saw some of their evidence and knew some of their planned arguments.
But lawyers (as he was) talk to each other just as any other professionals.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Bolint,

I do believe you to be an honest broker of information on this board.

But, there are some things you don't know about which are peripheral to the crime.



In other words Bolint, that's ...'hint, hint'.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
From Andrea Vogt:

Quote:
On Friday, Mignini was given a suspended sentence of one year and four months, pending appeal.

He will be allowed to continue his regular duties.

The sentence was seen as a way of placating multiple powerful interest in Italy's longest running unsolved mystery, the Monster of Florence.

The charges from 2006 allegations of unauthorized wiretapping of journalists and others as crimes were being investigated related to the Monster of Florence serial killings in the 1970s and '80s.

The abuse-of-office charges against Mignini have made him a lightning rod for criticism from Knox's supporters, who argue that she was wrongly accused and convicted.


This is where I start scratching my head (the sentence Michael has highlighted). On the one hand, it could suggest that Mignini is not really culpable, but the victim of political shenanigans that are playing out in the courts. But then powerful ripostes are aimed at the Knox/Mellas camp for casting aspersions on Italian justice.

I can see how this could well cause something of a firestorm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kip


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:30 pm

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

fine wrote:
That banging sound.


Amanda and Raffaele BOTH incorporated into their respective stories their alleged failed attempt to force open Meredith's door. On the one hand, this is an implausible story because either one could have kicked open the door if they had wished. So the story is very likely false. On the other hand, it's hard to see why they ATTACHED such importance to this implausible story.....so they tried and failed to force the door or, alternatively, so they didn't try....who cares? It's not incriminating either way. Or is it.

Well, it is an important element, because of it's diversionary force. On November 2, by 1:00 PM the Postal police have arrived at the cottage, and also Filomena and her three friends. Meredith's door is locked, but the door is cracked. Hmm. Why would Amanda and Raffaele wish to assume responsibility for THAT damage, and in so doing DATE the damage as occurrring a few moments earlier? Well, if the damage---and noise---had occured the night before that would have corroborated Kokomani's version of events for the night before. If Kokomani is telling the truth, he is the ONE AND ONLY witness that all three suspects were at the cottage that night, and the suspects knew this, and all four out on the street that night heard that banging sound.

The door damage was probably caused by Meredith herself, while she was locked in her room and the three suspects were outside committing their carjacking prank. She wasn't able to escape because of an asymmetry in door construction noted (above) by SomeAlibi. Any healthy person can kick OPEN a bedroom door, in the direction the door is designed to swing (into the room). Difficult to break it down when you're locked inside however....then your force is resisted not just by the bolt but by the door framing as well as the hinges. (Look at a door in your home for proof.) In a situation like THIS it's the door that's first to fail. Or crack. The evidence that someone tried ---and FAILED---to break down the door is evidence that it was Meredith. And also evidence that Kokomani was right.

///


I've read that the door on Meredith's room was not a deadbolt lock (please correct me if this is not correct). Would it have been possible to lock Meredith in her room?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
bolint wrote:
"Some people think that Stewarthome may have been an infiltrator from FOA "

Then he did a lousy work. Some of the best trial reporting (and not at all favourable for the defendants) were from him.


So you guarantee his accuracy - You were there?

A lesson for spies: First you establish your credentials, then you can do the real work.

Have you heard about phishing, getting people's email addresses and getting on mailing lists?


I don't think Stewart Home was an infiltrator for FOA, but I do think he was working with someone locally in Perugia who took an interest in this case. No, not Frank Sfarzo. He had access to both the defense and the prosecution, but as far as I can tell only the defense leaked documents to him. He may have provided valuable first-person accounts of a few trial sessions, but there is a huge difference between what SH offered and what professional journalists covering the trial offer. The latter take nothing as true until they have checked and rechecked it, using their sources cultivated over time. SH simply did not have these sources or resources.

I think it is highly significant that he dropped out early and never returned. He simply did not have the resources, the backing or the experience to cover the trial.

SH, if you are out there reading, I do not in any way wish to diminish the value of your imput. But I think you know what I am saying is true.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:
From Andrea Vogt:

Quote:
On Friday, Mignini was given a suspended sentence of one year and four months, pending appeal.

He will be allowed to continue his regular duties.

The sentence was seen as a way of placating multiple powerful interest in Italy's longest running unsolved mystery, the Monster of Florence.

The charges from 2006 allegations of unauthorized wiretapping of journalists and others as crimes were being investigated related to the Monster of Florence serial killings in the 1970s and '80s.

The abuse-of-office charges against Mignini have made him a lightning rod for criticism from Knox's supporters, who argue that she was wrongly accused and convicted.


This is where I start scratching my head (the sentence Michael has highlighted). On the one hand, it could suggest that Mignini is not really culpable, but the victim of political shenanigans that are playing out in the courts. But then powerful ripostes are aimed at the Knox/Mellas camp for casting aspersions on Italian justice.

I can see how this could well cause something of a firestorm.


I believe this is the second stage of Mignini's trial. He was aquitted in the first stage and the prosecution appealed. I'm assuming the final appeal will be to the Supreme Court.

It does rather put the Knox/Mellas camp in a bind with their "corrupt Italian justice" meme. Then again, they are just crazy enough to try and claim Italian justice is ONLY corrupt when in comes to convicting wacky-and-adorable American college girls. (**darn it, I really need an eyerolling emoticon!**)
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

:roll: There you go, Bea!
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

fine wrote:
That banging sound.
The door damage was probably caused by Meredith herself, while she was locked in her room and the three suspects were outside committing their carjacking prank. She wasn't able to escape because of an asymmetry in door construction noted (above) by SomeAlibi. Any healthy person can kick OPEN a bedroom door, in the direction the door is designed to swing (into the room). Difficult to break it down when you're locked inside however....then your force is resisted not just by the bolt but by the door framing as well as the hinges. (Look at a door in your home for proof.) In a situation like THIS it's the door that's first to fail. Or crack. The evidence that someone tried ---and FAILED---to break down the door is evidence that it was Meredith. And also evidence that Kokomani was right.

I thought the same for awhile but I think that the police could probably notice if the crack was made from the inside or the outside. Besides if Meredith was able to kick the door like that then why not go for the window or try to block the door?

The crack could indeed have been made by Rafaelle in a half attempt to bang the door in, but I don't really believe anything Rafaelle said at that time. Another time the crack could have been made is the very beginning of the attack. Theory: Meredith gets annoyed (by Rudy?) locks herself in (Amanda stating that Meredith locks her door sometimes), and when they get agressive at her door she opens it to tell them off, and things get out of hand.

An interesting theory about the banging sound is that Meredith was locked up in her wardrobe although you would think there would be clear signs inside the wardrobe if that was true. But it explains for the banging sounds, and all 3 of them outside at some stage.

In conclusion, I don't know and don't think the crack in the door is strong evidence of anything or we would have heard more about it.
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Corrina wrote:
:roll: There you go, Bea!


wor-)) , Corrina!

Silly of me not to just TRY ":roll:" even if I couldn't find it in the provided group.

Let the :roll: 'ing begin!
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: 112 calls   

thoughtful wrote:
Hello everyone.

I would like to give a detailed analysis of the timeline concerning Raffaele's 112 calls to the carabinieri, using the defense document that Michael posted at 1:43 pm. I believe that combining the CCTV camera footage and Amanda's phone records, as Bongiorno does in this document, provides a convincing argument that the postal police arrived at the cottage just after Raffaele had finished calling 112 for the second time.

....

OBJECTIONS TO BONGIORNO'S ANALYSIS:

If one assumes that the postal police must have arrived before 12:50, then one has to believe either

(1) that the carabinieri, one on foot and a patrol car, pulled over and parked directly in front of the cottage at 13:12 (if you believe that the CCTV camera time of "13:22" is ten minutes later than real time) or 13:20 (if you believe, as Comodi appears to now, that the time marked "12:48" is in reality 12:46), then drove away and circulated up and down the via della Pergola for 17 minutes in the first case, 9 minutes in the second case, before finally phoning Raffaele for directions to the cottage at 13:29.

(2) or that the black Fiat Punto visible in the film at CCTV time marked "12:41" and the two men who join up in front of Meredith's house had nothing to do with the postal police, in defiance of the fact that the postal police themselves accepted that they and their car are visible there, disputing only the time of their appearance.

These two arguments seem implausible to me and that's why I'm not sure about the consensus on the 112 calls.


What people relying on the CCTV footage don't think about is that it is supplementary evidence and not primary. The defence suggestions that it helps their case is flawed because the clock difference is measurable and it is known that the camera does not capture everything in its field of view.

Even without the CCTV footage, the Polizia testimony--along with that of the witnesses who observed RS and AK--suggest strongly that they were making the calls to the Carabinieri after the Polizia were already at the cottage. The carpark CCTV is not the smoking gun that defence supporters think it is. Frankly, I probably would have diminished its importance at the trial because it doesn't help RS and AK in the least.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
Corrina wrote:
:roll: There you go, Bea!


wor-)) , Corrina!

Silly of me not to just TRY ":roll:" even if I couldn't find it in the provided group.

Let the :roll: 'ing begin!



No need to bow; just throw chocolate...!
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
. . . This conviction is extraordinarily serious and appalling. The number of public officials given custodial sentences for criminal abuse of office / total failings is extremely small and I'm afraid this utterly undermines the credibility of Mignini as a man regardless of it being a different case. The respect we have for the Italian justice system in its conviction of the three murderers must be equally applied to the finding against Mignini. It couldn't be worse. The man is utterly blown by this conviction and you should expect the most serious consequences coming out of it.
Does this negate the conviction of the three murderers? No. It may cause a great deal of trouble but it doesn't alter the fact that there was a prosecutorial team that presented the evidence and it was not a one man show. The case against the murderers can stand but this is a very very bad day and it will be a struggle to face down the firestorm that will now follow. Incredibly irritating because we all know the evidence is there but this will now be played upon hugely.

I may be naive (OK, I am) and also ignorant of Italian legal system, but are you so sure this is as serious as you paint it? If he is ultimately found guilty, it leaves a bad aroma around his work and career, but where exactly does it impact the Knox/Sollecito case in a substantive way?
Certainly FOA will raise an extra few thousand dollars, and Donald Trump's toupee will face new challenges as he rants to the press, and Sfarzo, Preston and Spezi will wake up with hangovers tomorrow - but by the time the judge's report arrives, and the appeal begins with a different prosecutor(?), this will be a distant memory and the evidence will take center stage again.
The public's memory is notoriously short. But then again, I'm naive and ignorant.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: 112 calls   

stilicho wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Hello everyone.

I would like to give a detailed analysis of the timeline concerning Raffaele's 112 calls to the carabinieri, using the defense document that Michael posted at 1:43 pm. I believe that combining the CCTV camera footage and Amanda's phone records, as Bongiorno does in this document, provides a convincing argument that the postal police arrived at the cottage just after Raffaele had finished calling 112 for the second time.

....

OBJECTIONS TO BONGIORNO'S ANALYSIS:

If one assumes that the postal police must have arrived before 12:50, then one has to believe either

(1) that the carabinieri, one on foot and a patrol car, pulled over and parked directly in front of the cottage at 13:12 (if you believe that the CCTV camera time of "13:22" is ten minutes later than real time) or 13:20 (if you believe, as Comodi appears to now, that the time marked "12:48" is in reality 12:46), then drove away and circulated up and down the via della Pergola for 17 minutes in the first case, 9 minutes in the second case, before finally phoning Raffaele for directions to the cottage at 13:29.

(2) or that the black Fiat Punto visible in the film at CCTV time marked "12:41" and the two men who join up in front of Meredith's house had nothing to do with the postal police, in defiance of the fact that the postal police themselves accepted that they and their car are visible there, disputing only the time of their appearance.

These two arguments seem implausible to me and that's why I'm not sure about the consensus on the 112 calls.


What people relying on the CCTV footage don't think about is that it is supplementary evidence and not primary. The defence suggestions that it helps their case is flawed because the clock difference is measurable and it is known that the camera does not capture everything in its field of view.

Even without the CCTV footage, the Polizia testimony--along with that of the witnesses who observed RS and AK--suggest strongly that they were making the calls to the Carabinieri after the Polizia were already at the cottage. The carpark CCTV is not the smoking gun that defence supporters think it is. Frankly, I probably would have diminished its importance at the trial because it doesn't help RS and AK in the least.



The highest paid defense lawyer in Italy was unable to make a compelling argument and it looks as if AK's defense really played it down because -- as you suggest -- it doesn't help either one to call attention to the obvious. One reason she couldn't is that, alone, the CCTV footage proves nothing. The images she tried to attribute to the first arrival of the law enforcement other than the postal police did not prove first arrival at all.
Let me return to a point I made yesterday: Why did RS wait ten minutes after his call from dad at 12:40 to call his sister? Why did he make no mention of this phone call? Why did AK forget about the call to her mother at 12:47? What happened between 12:40 and 12:50? Well, I think the postal police arrived. They interrupted plans. What transpired in the two calls, one from RS's dad and one to AK's mom 7 minutes later? What transpired between the two calls? What were AK and RS doing during that time?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
. . . and Donald Trump's toupee will face new challenges




So much for that sip of tea! That was fantastic...
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
. . . This conviction is extraordinarily serious and appalling. The number of public officials given custodial sentences for criminal abuse of office / total failings is extremely small and I'm afraid this utterly undermines the credibility of Mignini as a man regardless of it being a different case. The respect we have for the Italian justice system in its conviction of the three murderers must be equally applied to the finding against Mignini. It couldn't be worse. The man is utterly blown by this conviction and you should expect the most serious consequences coming out of it.
Does this negate the conviction of the three murderers? No. It may cause a great deal of trouble but it doesn't alter the fact that there was a prosecutorial team that presented the evidence and it was not a one man show. The case against the murderers can stand but this is a very very bad day and it will be a struggle to face down the firestorm that will now follow. Incredibly irritating because we all know the evidence is there but this will now be played upon hugely.

I may be naive (OK, I am) and also ignorant of Italian legal system, but are you so sure this is as serious as you paint it? If he is ultimately found guilty, it leaves a bad aroma around his work and career, but where exactly does it impact the Knox/Sollecito case in a substantive way?
Certainly FOA will raise an extra few thousand dollars, and Donald Trump's toupee will face new challenges as he rants to the press, and Sfarzo, Preston and Spezi will wake up with hangovers tomorrow - but by the time the judge's report arrives, and the appeal begins with a different prosecutor(?), this will be a distant memory and the evidence will take center stage again.
The public's memory is notoriously short. But then again, I'm naive and ignorant.



I think I said it as plainly as I can that the convictions can stand because it's an entire team that secured the prosecution against the 3 murderers. And that means it doesn't need to be that serious for the case we are concerned with. But Mignini is utterly blown as a man. This is a criminal conviction of abuse of office carrying a custodial sentence. I don't personally agree with Michael that we need to understand what he's been found guilty of in the detail. He's now a convicted criminal who is going to do time in jail in relation to a criminal abuse of office i.e. his work. All of his work in his office is now therefore open to the strongest criticism and there really is no qualitative defence you can make of him at this point. My real words concerning him would turn the board blue. Probity in these roles is extremely important and he has let all of us down.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

From the MyNorthwest.com report today:
CBS Reporter Sabina Castelfranco in Italy, spoke with Knox's Italian attorney about how the conviction of Mignini might affect Knox's appeal.
"He says that technically, this sentence for Magnini has no legal effect on the appeal for Amanda Knox, but it certainly raises questions and concerns regarding conflict of interest," said Castelfranco.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Corrina wrote:
Bea wrote:
Corrina wrote:
:roll: There you go, Bea!


wor-)) , Corrina!

Silly of me not to just TRY ":roll:" even if I couldn't find it in the provided group.

Let the :roll: 'ing begin!



No need to bow; just throw chocolate...!



As you wish!:




(Perfectly sized and wrapped for easy use as appreciation missles!)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
. . . This conviction is extraordinarily serious and appalling. The number of public officials given custodial sentences for criminal abuse of office / total failings is extremely small and I'm afraid this utterly undermines the credibility of Mignini as a man regardless of it being a different case. The respect we have for the Italian justice system in its conviction of the three murderers must be equally applied to the finding against Mignini. It couldn't be worse. The man is utterly blown by this conviction and you should expect the most serious consequences coming out of it.
Does this negate the conviction of the three murderers? No. It may cause a great deal of trouble but it doesn't alter the fact that there was a prosecutorial team that presented the evidence and it was not a one man show. The case against the murderers can stand but this is a very very bad day and it will be a struggle to face down the firestorm that will now follow. Incredibly irritating because we all know the evidence is there but this will now be played upon hugely.

I may be naive (OK, I am) and also ignorant of Italian legal system, but are you so sure this is as serious as you paint it? If he is ultimately found guilty, it leaves a bad aroma around his work and career, but where exactly does it impact the Knox/Sollecito case in a substantive way?
Certainly FOA will raise an extra few thousand dollars, and Donald Trump's toupee will face new challenges as he rants to the press, and Sfarzo, Preston and Spezi will wake up with hangovers tomorrow - but by the time the judge's report arrives, and the appeal begins with a different prosecutor(?), this will be a distant memory and the evidence will take center stage again.
The public's memory is notoriously short. But then again, I'm naive and ignorant.



I think I said it as plainly as I can that the convictions can stand because it's an entire team that secured the prosecution against the 3 murderers. And that means it doesn't need to be that serious for the case we are concerned with. But Mignini is utterly blown as a man. This is a criminal conviction of abuse of office carrying a custodial sentence. I don't personally agree with Michael that we need to understand what he's been found guilty of in the detail. He's now a convicted criminal who is going to do time in jail in relation to a criminal abuse of office i.e. his work. All of his work in his office is now therefore open to the strongest criticism and there really is no qualitative defence you can make of him at this point. My real words concerning him would turn the board blue. Probity in these roles is extremely important and he has let all of us down.


The sentence will be appealed and he may win on appeal. My sources in Italy have told me that this is a relatively routine offense. Mignini was actually acquitted in the first trial and the Florence prosecutor (Florence is where Mario Spezi is from) decided to appeal. I don't mean to downplay prosecutorial misconduct, but as others who have been around for a long time can tell you, this is a very convoluted affair that has lots to do with male egos and territory. Just sayin'. It isn't as if Mignini has been convicted of murder. Do you want to know why the FOA tries to pretend that co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi doesn't exist? Because she is one of the few prosecutors in Italy who is clean as a whistle and has never had her hand slapped once.
Obviously, it would be better from an image management point of view if the outcome had been acquittal at this stage. But I am intrigued by the sentence about appeasement of political interests. That's the thing to wonder about, in my opinion.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
donnie wrote:
..and it's not me who got banned....a shocker! 8-)

rip Meredith Kercher


There's still time sc-))



Stop it - I just nearly lost a Logitech G15 keyboard (holiday today - at home) due to the spontaneous exhalation of coffee :)

OT - While we're establishing our feminist credentials, let me recount: 2nd year politics (first degree - the law was a conversion in mid 20's), I took a feminism module for a term. In the first lesson we were supposed to have read some Dworkin but unfortunately I had been rocking the band I was in at the time a little too hard the night before and hadn't read a thing. The tutor, smelling blood in the water, turned to me during the lesson and said "so what would be your summary of Dworkin's main points?". Looking like I'd been blown through a hedge backwards by an RPG to the face (it had been a big night), I flicked my rock 'n' roll hair out of my face (and where did all *that* go huh?) and said "I think he had some very valid points".

The silence was deafening

Andrea Dworkin continues to have an international reputation for feminist writing that somewhat dwarves mine. wh-)


Stop it all of you! No danger to the keyboard but I scared the jack russell into a panic by the outburst(s) eek-)
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
Corrina wrote:
Bea wrote:
Corrina wrote:
:roll: There you go, Bea!


wor-)) , Corrina!

Silly of me not to just TRY ":roll:" even if I couldn't find it in the provided group.

Let the :roll: 'ing begin!



No need to bow; just throw chocolate...!



As you wish!:




(Perfectly sized and wrapped for easy use as appreciation missles!)



hugz-) Thank you! There are few greater joys than chocolate. And of those joys, chocolate can only make them even better...
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:


He's now a convicted criminal who is going to do time in jail in relation to a criminal abuse of office i.e. his work.


He was given a "suspended" sentence, which I believe means he WON'T serve any actual time in jail. Perhaps Fiona can comment on whether "suspended" has the same meaning in the Italian legal system.


ETA link to Seattle PI article referencing suspended sentence:
Although cleared of the main charge against him, the remaining charges resulted in a suspended sentence of one year and four months. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/414529_knox22.html

E*again*TA another reference to no jail time:
Mignini is not headed to prison. He received a suspended 16-month sentence. http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=274343


Last edited by Bea on Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Franky Wants to go to Hollywood says in his latest that Mignini won't serve any time because the sentence is too short. Whatever that means.
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Somealibi wrote:
Quote:
But Mignini is utterly blown as a man. . . . All of his work in his office is now therefore open to the strongest criticism and there really is no qualitative defence you can make of him at this point. My real words concerning him would turn the board blue. Probity in these roles is extremely important and he has let all of us down.

I concede you have far more experience than I do in this area. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Obviously, it's not good.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

And just to throw a bit of 'open your eyes dust' over the carabinieri arrival time, why is Bongiorno trying to set that time by the phone call giving directions? The carabinieri would have logged their arrival back to base just as the Postal Police when they arrived earlier. Why not use the carabinieri's log of when they arrived? Why not mention their log at ALL? Why so silent about that? Instead, Bongiorno's trying to pull a fast one by using the call for directions and the carabinieri car caught going past the garage, which may or may not have been the first car on the scene. The fact that Bongiorno makes NO mention of the Carabinieri's log shows me she's trying to pull a fast one to change the time of the carabinieri's actual arrival, in order to reset the car park camera clock to a time that she feel's is more convenient to her client. The lesson is that one should not only scrutinise what Bongiorno puts into her report, but what she leaves out of it, because that can be just as telling.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
Somealibi wrote:
Quote:
But Mignini is utterly blown as a man. . . . All of his work in his office is now therefore open to the strongest criticism and there really is no qualitative defence you can make of him at this point. My real words concerning him would turn the board blue. Probity in these roles is extremely important and he has let all of us down.

I concede you have far more experience than I do in this area. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Obviously, it's not good.


Apparently, this kind of thing is quite common in Italy. One also has to remember Mignini was the senior prosecutor on the case, not the senior prosecutor in Perugia. That is the Prosecutor General, he heads the office, and it was he who tried Rudy in his appeal and it will be he that tries Knox and Sollecito in their appeal. It also must be remembered that two prosecutors tried Raffaele and Amanda, the other being Comodi. Her record is not in question.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
And just to throw a bit of 'open your eyes dust' over the carabinieri arrival time, why is Bongiorno trying to set that time by the phone call giving directions? The carabinieri would have logged their arrival back to base just as the Postal Police when they arrived earlier. Why not use the carabinieri's log of when they arrived? Why not mention their log at ALL? Why so silent about that? Instead, Bongiorno's trying to pull a fast one by using the call for directions and the carabinieri car caught going past the garage, which may or may not have been the first car on the scene. The fact that Bongiorno makes NO mention of the Carabinieri's log shows me she's trying to pull a fast one to change the time of the carabinieri's actual arrival, in order to reset the car park camera clock to a time that she feel's is more convenient to her client. The lesson is that one should not only scrutinise what Bongiorno puts into her report, but what she leaves out of it, because that can be just as telling.



Also, in her email Knox talks about being outside and having waves of police arriving as they waited. She doesn't even mention anyone giving directions.... but then again, she forgot the phone call to her mom and still hasn't recovered that memory. What did they really say during that phone call? What did Raffaele tell his dad at 12:40?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
donnie wrote:
..and it's not me who got banned....a shocker! 8-)

rip Meredith Kercher


There's still time sc-))



Stop it - I just nearly lost a Logitech G15 keyboard (holiday today - at home) due to the spontaneous exhalation of coffee :)

OT - While we're establishing our feminist credentials, let me recount: 2nd year politics (first degree - the law was a conversion in mid 20's), I took a feminism module for a term. In the first lesson we were supposed to have read some Dworkin but unfortunately I had been rocking the band I was in at the time a little too hard the night before and hadn't read a thing. The tutor, smelling blood in the water, turned to me during the lesson and said "so what would be your summary of Dworkin's main points?". Looking like I'd been blown through a hedge backwards by an RPG to the face (it had been a big night), I flicked my rock 'n' roll hair out of my face (and where did all *that* go huh?) and said "I think he had some very valid points".

The silence was deafening

Andrea Dworkin continues to have an international reputation for feminist writing that somewhat dwarves mine. wh-)


Stop it all of you! No danger to the keyboard but I scared the jack russell into a panic by the outburst(s) eek-)


I meant to say it: that had me laughing too. Andrea would probably laugh too.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kip wrote:
I've read that the door on Meredith's room was not a deadbolt lock (please correct me if this is not correct). Would it have been possible to lock Meredith in her room?


Yes, it was a mortice lock Kip and it was possible to lock Meredith in her room, from the otside with the key. The key has never been found...apparently. Although there were some early reports (one posted here recently) that the keys were found in Amanda's room. However, since that didn't come up in the trial it probably wasn't so.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:

I may be naive (OK, I am) and also ignorant of Italian legal system, but are you so sure this is as serious as you paint it? If he is ultimately found guilty, it leaves a bad aroma around his work and career, but where exactly does it impact the Knox/Sollecito case in a substantive way?
Certainly FOA will raise an extra few thousand dollars, and Donald Trump's toupee will face new challenges as he rants to the press, and Sfarzo, Preston and Spezi will wake up with hangovers tomorrow - but by the time the judge's report arrives, and the appeal begins with a different prosecutor(?), this will be a distant memory and the evidence will take center stage again.
The public's memory is notoriously short. But then again, I'm naive and ignorant.


Hi Tigerfish,
you are not naive, nor ignorant, but realistic. So Mignini was found guilty of unauthorized consultation of classified files and illegally wiretapping other cops, while pursuing a murder case. Well you don't do that when you're a prosecutor, so "dura lex sed lex", he got to pay the bill. Obviously it would have been so much better if he had been found not guilty, however a) there's still an appeal b) he has been acquitted of the abuse of office in Genoa c) his crimes are limited to unauthorized wiretapping and files consulting. I bet the FOAs have already gone hysterical, but I think she should stay cool. It's not the end of the world at all and as you say, by the time the dynamic duo goes on trial, the name of Mignini will be mostly forgotten.
Have a nice weekend :-)

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Quote:
The sentence will be appealed and he may win on appeal. My sources in Italy have told me that this is a relatively routine offense. Mignini was actually acquitted in the first trial and the Florence prosecutor (Florence is where Mario Spezi is from) decided to appeal. I don't mean to downplay prosecutorial misconduct, but as others who have been around for a long time can tell you, this is a very convoluted affair that has lots to do with male egos and territory. Just sayin'.

I'm starting to get an impression the Italian judicial system has some kinship with Texas' good ole boy legal set-up - a sort of second cousin, once removed kind of thing.
And for obvious reasons (Old Sparky), I think Amanda was especially fortunate she didn't choose El Paso for her language studies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:


He's now a convicted criminal who is going to do time in jail in relation to a criminal abuse of office i.e. his work.


He was given a "suspended" sentence, which I believe means he WON'T serve any actual time in jail. Perhaps Fiona can comment on whether "suspended" has the same meaning in the Italian legal system.


ETA link to Seattle PI article referencing suspended sentence:
Although cleared of the main charge against him, the remaining charges resulted in a suspended sentence of one year and four months. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/414529_knox22.html

E*again*TA another reference to no jail time:
Mignini is not headed to prison. He received a suspended 16-month sentence. http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=274343

Yes a suspended sentence means he will not have to go to jail.Not now nor later,even if the sentence were confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Re: Mignini's conviction.

He tapped the phones of people in authority and the system has decided he didn't have the right to do so.

We already know Italy has pretty lax phone tapping laws compared to the US and the UK.

Does that mean that the tapped phone calls in this case weren't made????????????????? and their content can't be allowed???????????


Want to get someone off on a technicality?????????????
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I really don't think this is trivial and I don't think it will be forgotten come the appeal. Amanda's PR will make sure it is not
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Where's Yummi when you need him?



_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 868

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't think Stewart Home was an infiltrator for FOA, but I do think he was working with someone locally in Perugia who took an interest in this case. No, not Frank Sfarzo. He had access to both the defense and the prosecution, but as far as I can tell only the defense leaked documents to him. He may have provided valuable first-person accounts of a few trial sessions, but there is a huge difference between what SH offered and what professional journalists covering the trial offer. The latter take nothing as true until they have checked and rechecked it, using their sources cultivated over time. SH simply did not have these sources or resources.

I think it is highly significant that he dropped out early and never returned. He simply did not have the resources, the backing or the experience to cover the trial.

SH, if you are out there reading, I do not in any way wish to diminish the value of your imput. But I think you know what I am saying is true.


My take on this, too. We exchanged over 100 emails (he posted a piece on TJMK early-on very hard on Knox, about her lack of formal structure for her stay in Perugia) and the evolution I believe I saw in him was from a slightly naive young guy with little court experience to a believer that the crime was all done with a small knife to someone who could convince no-one else and became dispirited and moved on. I would love to know what he thinks now. Many of the reporters knew him by sight (and his real name too) and have said he was not around for a long time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Apparently Mignini is able to continue to practice even with a criminal conviction against him. I am 101% utterly confused by that. I mean WHAAA?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Apparently Mignini is able to continue to practice even with a criminal conviction against him. I am 101% utterly confused by that. I mean WHAAA?


Well, firstly, he hasn't actually been convicted under Italian law. Not until it has gone through all the appeals. He's still legally innocent. The same also applies to Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apparently Mignini is able to continue to practice even with a criminal conviction against him. I am 101% utterly confused by that. I mean WHAAA?


Well, firstly, he hasn't actually been convicted under Italian law. Not until it has gone through all the appeals. He's still legally innocent. The same also applies to Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele.


I think you have to understand that he was accused and acquitted of "minor" charges of misconduct (again, I urge you to find the details - I am so sick of repeating this story over and over) in connection with a highly controversial case he inherited. A Florentine prosecutor appealed the acquittal, though Mignini was cleared of the "most serious"charge. The fact that his sentence was suspended and that he continues on in his professional capacity should tell you something about the nature of the charges and judicial politics in Italy.
You won't understand unless you go after the information. Some of it is on TJMK.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apparently Mignini is able to continue to practice even with a criminal conviction against him. I am 101% utterly confused by that. I mean WHAAA?


Well, firstly, he hasn't actually been convicted under Italian law. Not until it has gone through all the appeals. He's still legally innocent. The same also applies to Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele.



That's an interesting distinction. In the UK you are guilty but your guilt can be appealed and overturned. Found guilty, sentenced but "not guilty" is a pretty odd concept to me. Still, vive la difference.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Geologist


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:31 pm

Posts: 83

Location: Leeds and Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:
I really don't think this is trivial and I don't think it will be forgotten come the appeal. Amanda's PR will make sure it is not


Problem for them is that it'll change nothing in the Italian courts. They can cry all they want in the American press and I'm sure there will be plenty of Faux outrage.

It doesn't change a thing regarding the evidence against them in the case.

If this really meant something the Sollecito's would have been on this for the last year.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apparently Mignini is able to continue to practice even with a criminal conviction against him. I am 101% utterly confused by that. I mean WHAAA?


Well, firstly, he hasn't actually been convicted under Italian law. Not until it has gone through all the appeals. He's still legally innocent. The same also applies to Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele.


I think you have to understand that he was accused and acquitted of "minor" charges of misconduct (again, I urge you to find the details - I am so sick of repeating this story over and over) in connection with a highly controversial case he inherited. A Florentine prosecutor appealed the acquittal, though Mignini was cleared of the "most serious"charge. The fact that his sentence was suspended and that he continues on in his professional capacity should tell you something about the nature of the charges and judicial politics in Italy.
You won't understand unless you go after the information. Some of it is on TJMK.


Skep, I know the details. Maybe I'm rather old school about this but there are no mitigating factors behind a criminal and (suspended or otherwise) custodial sentence for an official in public office. I am hugely disappointed in Mignini.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
Corrina wrote:
Bea wrote:
Corrina wrote:
:roll: There you go, Bea!


wor-)) , Corrina!

Silly of me not to just TRY ":roll:" even if I couldn't find it in the provided group.

Let the :roll: 'ing begin!



No need to bow; just throw chocolate...!



As you wish!:




Those are nice, but these are better:

http://www.nestle.it/brand/Baci/prodott ... nrosso.htm

Tom


(Perfectly sized and wrapped for easy use as appreciation missles!)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apparently Mignini is able to continue to practice even with a criminal conviction against him. I am 101% utterly confused by that. I mean WHAAA?


Well, firstly, he hasn't actually been convicted under Italian law. Not until it has gone through all the appeals. He's still legally innocent. The same also applies to Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele.



That's an interesting distinction. In the UK you are guilty but your guilt can be appealed and overturned. Found guilty, sentenced but "not guilty" is a pretty odd concept to me. Still, vive la difference.



It's the other way around in Italy. The verdict has to be confirmed and that doesn't happen until the final appeal, until that happens, legally, the conviction doesn't exist. This is why in fact most murderers in Italy even having been convicted, spend the years it takes for the appeals living at home continuing with their families and lives. Guede, Knox and Sollecito are the exception to that norm because a) the crime has an aggravated sexual element which could mean re-offending (danger to the public) and b) because all three are deemed flight risks.

But all the same, 'legally' they are still innocent and will be so until completion of the third degree.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apparently Mignini is able to continue to practice even with a criminal conviction against him. I am 101% utterly confused by that. I mean WHAAA?


Well, firstly, he hasn't actually been convicted under Italian law. Not until it has gone through all the appeals. He's still legally innocent. The same also applies to Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele.


I think you have to understand that he was accused and acquitted of "minor" charges of misconduct (again, I urge you to find the details - I am so sick of repeating this story over and over) in connection with a highly controversial case he inherited. A Florentine prosecutor appealed the acquittal, though Mignini was cleared of the "most serious"charge. The fact that his sentence was suspended and that he continues on in his professional capacity should tell you something about the nature of the charges and judicial politics in Italy.
You won't understand unless you go after the information. Some of it is on TJMK.


Skep, I know the details. Maybe I'm rather old school about this but there are no mitigating factors behind a criminal and (suspended or otherwise) custodial sentence for an official in public office. I am hugely disappointed in Mignini.


So am I.

But it doesn't change the argument.

Was he entitled or not to tap the phones of some politicians and a police chief?

The contents of those taps remain whether related to that case or this..... They actually happened.

Of course, everyone outside the US understands that GWB never had his phone tapped when he decided that IRAQ had WMD and proceeded to kill 100,000.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 868

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skep, I know the details. Maybe I'm rather old school about this but there are no mitigating factors behind a criminal and (suspended or otherwise) custodial sentence for an official in public office. I am hugely disappointed in Mignini.


You really know the details? Then you will know this is an over-reaction.

Please do as suggested and go and read all the many posts on TJMK including those with Mignini's two emails.

He was caught in a purely political trap, and my bet is when everyone has forgotten he will get out of it again.

And the satanic cabal in Florence lives on, to fight another day!

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Well it would seem that in Italy, as here, there is a procedure to be gone through in order to legally tap a phone. And it seems he did not follow it. For me I think that is an important safeguard and since in Italy there seems to be a very strong set of safeguards in the system I cannot find it in me to play this down, Brian S.

It makes no difference to the case we are discussing: but the problem is that if he did not follow procedure designed to protect the accused in that case it will be presented as prima facie reason to believe he would tamper with evidence in other ways too. It will not affect the appeal, I do not think: but it will certainly affect the propaganda. And this is already an uphill struggle.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
It does rather put the Knox/Mellas camp in a bind with their "corrupt Italian justice" meme. Then again, they are just crazy enough to try and claim Italian justice is ONLY corrupt when in comes to convicting wacky-and-adorable American college girls.


I'm glad you said that, Bea.

Most importantly, the case has no bearing whatsoever on the Perugia murder. But this is just as important. Either the Italian justice system is universally corrupt and/or incompetent or it isn't. AK's supporters can try to have it both ways but that dog don't hunt.

Reminds me of the DNA contamination meme. The forensics are spot on regarding RG (and PL's innocence) but incompetent, lazy, sneaky, etc regarding only RS and AK.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Of course, everyone outside the US understands that GWB never had his phone tapped when he decided that IRAQ had WMD and proceeded to kill 100,000.

Sorry, but a) I am outside the US, b) what has the veracity/or non veracity of your allegation have to due with the Meredith Kercher murder?

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skep, I know the details. Maybe I'm rather old school about this but there are no mitigating factors behind a criminal and (suspended or otherwise) custodial sentence for an official in public office. I am hugely disappointed in Mignini.


Please bear in mind, in Mignini's situation, it is a very grey case. He's already been found innocent of all charges once. On prosecution appeal he was then found guilty on one charge and dismissed on the rest. Now it goes to appeal. This should say to any onlooker that it is very convoluted with much ambiguity and could go either way on the appeal. And that's without throwing in the political/power struggle element. What is clear, is that this is a trial based on procedural/protocol matters. This is not about criminal corruption as we would understand it in the US or UK (taking bungs, falsifying evidence, malicious prosecution etc,). It's in exactly the same way that we wouldn't see defamation or slander as a criminal offence. The Italians do, but still we take it lightly because we understand what it amounts to in reality and see it in our minds as a 'misdemeanor', or in that class. This is in the same ball park.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tom_ch wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Of course, everyone outside the US understands that GWB never had his phone tapped when he decided that IRAQ had WMD and proceeded to kill 100,000.

Sorry, but a) I am outside the US, b) what has the veracity/or non veracity of your allegation have to due with the Meredith Kercher murder?

Tom


The point I make mate is that no ordinary person is informed of any reason or decision by the executive of any country. People are people.

What would you feel comfortable with on your shoulders? On "unknown information", 1 or 100,000+

Your system in America stinks.


Last edited by Brian S. on Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skep, I know the details. Maybe I'm rather old school about this but there are no mitigating factors behind a criminal and (suspended or otherwise) custodial sentence for an official in public office. I am hugely disappointed in Mignini.


You really know the details? Then you will know this is an over-reaction.

Please do as suggested and go and read all the many posts on TJMK including those with Mignini's two emails.

He was caught in a purely political trap, and my bet is when everyone has forgotten he will get out of it again.

And the satanic cabal in Florence lives on, to fight another day!

Peter Quennell



Pete, as I said, I already read them. And in fact, even if one hadn't, it's actually irrelevant if one supports the Italian judicial process for reasons that follow: My point is not a subjective one but an objective one to do with the conviction. If one believes in the process of Italian law, which is essential to the correct conviction of the three murderers, one has to believe in the process that has found Mignini guilty also. Sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. And that process has found a public official guilty of a matter that goes to his honesty and appropriate behaviour and he has been found criminally wanting of that. One can't start dodging around saying "oh maybe it's not so bad" and going to the case of the defence for Mignini because that's exactly what the FOA do for AK. Politics or otherwise, he's been found guilty and for now, pending appeal, it's a disgraceful thing for an official prosecutor to be criminally convicted of abuse of office. If you think that's political rather than appropriately tried, you are doing a huge disservice to Italian justice - a real shocker of an allegation that has worse connotations than a single prosecutor's guilt by far.

Lets hope a higher court clears his name, but I can't have truck with this selective acceptance or "not so bad" take on a custodial criminal convictions for a public official.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

And let me just say again, because I can see the danger of this one spinning off into the long grass: The three murderers were convicted by an entire system and the state. I may be a stickler for honesty and probity in public officials but it really really matters - it is all we have to prove our better status that the people that are tried. But Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are where they are for the right reason and I don't believe that's going to change.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:
Well it would seem that in Italy, as here, there is a procedure to be gone through in order to legally tap a phone. And it seems he did not follow it. For me I think that is an important safeguard and since in Italy there seems to be a very strong set of safeguards in the system I cannot find it in me to play this down, Brian S.

It makes no difference to the case we are discussing: but the problem is that if he did not follow procedure designed to protect the accused in that case it will be presented as prima facie reason to believe he would tamper with evidence in other ways too. It will not affect the appeal, I do not think: but it will certainly affect the propaganda. And this is already an uphill struggle.



In a way I am confident that Amanda's PR will always manage to overdo and make everything backfire on themselves. Just read what Janet Huff has to say about the Mignini trial (on mynorthwest.com). It sounds rather unpleasant and gives me an earache already now.


Last edited by Ava on Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
As soon as you get the chance, could one of our translators very kindly render a full and proper translation of the article Jools linked. Much appreciated.

Hi Michael,

I'm probably late with the translation and maybe not longer need it, sorry I lost internet connection for a few hours, but here it is:

Monster of Florence, condemned are pm Mignini and policeman Giuttari.
The charge is abuse of office.
In a search related to the Perugia investigations connected to the murders committed in Tuscany.

Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and policeman-writer Michele Giuttari were convicted by the court of Florence to one year and four months and one year and six months on charges of abuse of office in a complicit investigation relating the Perugia investigation connected to the monster of Florence. Mignini was the main magistrate in Perugia for the Meredith Kercher murder investigation: the case of the English student has nothing to do with the trial process that has now ended. Michele Giuttari had been the chief leader of Gides (group investigating serial killings) who conducted with the Florence and Perugia prosecution offices investigations into the monster of Florence case. The abuse of office for which they were convicted is in regard to a series of investigations on journalists and law enforcement officials for, according to the prosecution, conditioning their activity regarding the Perugia investigation into the death of the doctor Francesco Narducci which was to be connected to incidents in the monster of Florence.

THE INQUIRY- The Florentine pm in charge of the inquiry, Luca Turco, had asked for sentences of 10 months for Mignini and two and a half years for Giuttari. According to the Florence prosecution office, Giuttari and Mignini would have conducted illicit search - by tapping or by opening case files - on some police officers (like the former police commissioner of Florence Giuseppe De Donno and the former director of external relations Roberto Sgalla) and journalists (like Vincenzo Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano and Roberto Fiasconaro) with intent to punish or condition them in their work, because they had critical attitudes towards Giuttari’s conduct with the press or over the investigation into the death of the Perugia doctor Francesco Narducci. Mignini and Giuttari were cleared "because the fact does not exist” of the accusation of abuse of office (and neither against Mignini that of favoring Giuttari), related to 'parallel' investigations to those in the Prosecutor office in Genoa, who was investigating Giuttari for forgery, regarding his recording of a conversation between him and the Florentine pm Paolo Canessa. At the time Giuttari was head of Gides, while Canessa was coordinating the Tuscan part of the monster of Florence investigation.

THE REACTION - "I'm shocked," said Perugia's pm Mignini. When asked if the ruling could cast a shadow on the work in the Meredith case, Mignini responded by recalling that in Perugia, "there were the judges who passed judgement over the Meredith case. The ruling today, instead, concerns me."
Mignini’s defense lawyer, Mauro Ronco, explains that "Giuttari and Mignini were acquitted of the main part of the process and, in fact, this disproves the whole accusatorial procedure." When asked if a ban to hold public office - as secondary punishment - could have an effect on Mignini’s profession, Ronco said: "obviously, the penalty is suspended sentence for probation and the same is valid for the ban."
Corriere della Sera
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skep, I know the details. Maybe I'm rather old school about this but there are no mitigating factors behind a criminal and (suspended or otherwise) custodial sentence for an official in public office. I am hugely disappointed in Mignini.


Please bear in mind, in Mignini's situation, it is a very grey case. He's already been found innocent of all charges once. On prosecution appeal he was then found guilty on one charge and dismissed on the rest. Now it goes to appeal. This should say to any onlooker that it is very convoluted with much ambiguity and could go either way on the appeal. And that's without throwing in the political/power struggle element. What is clear, is that this is a trial based on procedural/protocol matters. This is not about criminal corruption as we would understand it in the US or UK (taking bungs, falsifying evidence, malicious prosecution etc,). It's in exactly the same way that we wouldn't see defamation or slander as a criminal offence. The Italians do, but still we take it lightly because we understand what it amounts to in reality and see it in our minds as a 'misdemeanor', or in that class. This is in the same ball park.


Michael, as always, you talk a lot of sense. A custodial sentence even which is suspended can't be a misdemeanor imho but yes lets wait for the end of the process. By the way, you can commit criminal defamation in the UK in addition to the civil case, it is just not very frequently pursued. The Italian pursuit is really very interesting from an academic point of view, and tbh my sympathies are now more with them than the way we do it in the UK.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fast Pete, I respect your depth of knowledge about these events, and appreciate all the insights you have shared.

However, I tend to side with Some Alibi and your opposition here on this one.

Your factual description of the slight significance and extenuating circumstances of personalities, peeves, and perceptions of this 'conviction' cannot be contradicted.
But,if you think this is an 'overreaction' here, I humbly submit that ..you ain't seen nothin yet.

The media masters extrordinaire at Marriott have deftly demonstrated an uncanny ability to capitalize on some of the most insignificant and often inaccurate half truths.
They will unashamedly make a media maelstrom that gets repulsively regurgitated repeatedly to the ultimate degree of ad nauseam on the US outlets.
Past events have shown this to be true on more than a few occasions to me.
Through these and the cunning carefully crafted, controlled, and stealthly staged Curt and Edda "dog and Pony shows" that like the 'Big Lies' of history, sufficient repetition sadly credibility makes.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

"THE REACTION - "I'm shocked," said Perugia's pm Mignini. When asked if the ruling could cast a shadow on the work in the Meredith case, Mignini responded by recalling that in Perugia, "there were the judges who passed judgement over the Meredith case. The ruling today, instead, concerns me."

However, bravo the man for laying that out clearly there and then. He knows what is at stake.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Jools wrote:
I'm probably late with the translation and maybe not longer need it, sorry I lost internet connection for a few hours, but here it is:



No, we do, we do!!! Thanks a lot for that Jools :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Of course, everyone outside the US understands that GWB never had his phone tapped when he decided that IRAQ had WMD and proceeded to kill 100,000.

Sorry, but a) I am outside the US, b) what has the veracity/or non veracity of your allegation have to due with the Meredith Kercher murder?

Tom


The point I make mate is that no ordinary person is informed of any reason or decision by the executive of any country. People are people.

What would you feel comfortable with on your shoulders? On "unknown information", 1 or 100,000+

Your system in America stinks.


A) I am not American (though I used to be)

B) Actually, here (CH) the people DO have ultimate say, and not the government

C) What has this to do with the Meredith Kercher murder?

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I'm sorry to people from the US, but I'm not about to take it away.

I don't really believe that all of you hold views that would kill 100,000.

But you who imprison a higher proportion of their population than any other country in the world including China? When you are 11 times more likely to find someone guilty than Italy?????

Do you think you get all of them right????? Do you think that Americans are 11 times more criminal than people in Italy??? They haven't got a fraction of your murder rate. You are the killers.

Look at the statistics, you twats.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skep, I know the details. Maybe I'm rather old school about this but there are no mitigating factors behind a criminal and (suspended or otherwise) custodial sentence for an official in public office. I am hugely disappointed in Mignini.


Please bear in mind, in Mignini's situation, it is a very grey case. He's already been found innocent of all charges once. On prosecution appeal he was then found guilty on one charge and dismissed on the rest. Now it goes to appeal. This should say to any onlooker that it is very convoluted with much ambiguity and could go either way on the appeal. And that's without throwing in the political/power struggle element. What is clear, is that this is a trial based on procedural/protocol matters. This is not about criminal corruption as we would understand it in the US or UK (taking bungs, falsifying evidence, malicious prosecution etc,). It's in exactly the same way that we wouldn't see defamation or slander as a criminal offence. The Italians do, but still we take it lightly because we understand what it amounts to in reality and see it in our minds as a 'misdemeanor', or in that class. This is in the same ball park.

Very properly explained Michael, th-) Now, let's leave the hysterical comments at the FOA's and move on.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Last edited by nicki on Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Okay, let's draw the case, not borders :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

nicki wrote:
Bea wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:


He's now a convicted criminal who is going to do time in jail in relation to a criminal abuse of office i.e. his work.


He was given a "suspended" sentence, which I believe means he WON'T serve any actual time in jail. Perhaps Fiona can comment on whether "suspended" has the same meaning in the Italian legal system.


ETA link to Seattle PI article referencing suspended sentence:
Although cleared of the main charge against him, the remaining charges resulted in a suspended sentence of one year and four months. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/414529_knox22.html

E*again*TA another reference to no jail time:
Mignini is not headed to prison. He received a suspended 16-month sentence. http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=274343

Yes a suspended sentence means he will not have to go to jail.Not now nor later,even if the sentence were confirmed by the Court of Appeal.



Thank you, nicki! (I see now in my original post I wrote "Fiona", but I was thinking "nicki"... Posted before consuming my recommended daily allowance of cafe! :oops: )
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
I'm sorry to people from the US, but I'm not about to take it away.

I don't really believe that all of you hold views that would kill 100,000.

But you who imprison a higher proportion of their population than any other country in the world including China? When you are 11 times more likely to find someone guilty than Italy?????

Do you think you get all of them right????? Do you think that Americans are 11 times more criminal than people in Italy??? They haven't got a fraction of your murder rate. You are the killers.

Look at the statistics, you twats.


Brian, your gynecological concluding comments only insults and in fact denigrates the point that you are trying to make.

Reference that point, our US system is not perfect.
However, your theory of a China comparison to our detriment does little for me.

By the way, speaking of 'killers'.
I'm sure you are aware of the current Chinese legal solution to drug problems....drum roll, and visual please. .........
Oh yeah, their legal system also charges the deceased family the cost of the one bullet used too.

Best Regards, and I enjoyed many of your past contributions here.
Forgive me again for being selectively suitably underimpressed with this one.

Edited for lousy one finger typing (again)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Last edited by stint7 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:


Thank you, nicki! (I see now in my original post I wrote "Fiona", but I was thinking "nicki"... Posted before consuming my recommended daily allowance of cafe! :oops: )


*Is much relieved not to have to try to displace an impression of legal expertise*

Had me worried there, for a moment, Bea :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:
Bea wrote:


Thank you, nicki! (I see now in my original post I wrote "Fiona", but I was thinking "nicki"... Posted before consuming my recommended daily allowance of cafe! :oops: )


*Is much relieved not to have to try to displace an impression of legal expertise*

Had me worried there, for a moment, Bea :D


Thanks for your understanding, Fiona. If confusing the names of two lovely ladies of the board is the worst brain-blip I have today, I'll count myself lucky. ss-) :)
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S.

You aren't arguing with all of us about the US legal system.
I live here, and I suspect I have a lot more anger about it than you express here.

I think what people are reacting to, though, is a failure to link the discussion of the US system to Mignini's situation.
I *think* you are suggesting the following:
In Italy, Mignini is accused of a failure to apply properly to listen in on government officials.
It is a hotly disputed case, his actions were found legal at a lower court, and presumably were productive to the issue at hand being resolved.
The US has more strict laws on the legality of illegally obtained information - this charge would be more serious in the US than apparently it is in Italy.
US officials could CLEARLY do with better monitoring - case in point being GW Bush and the WMDs.
Therefore Mignini's actions are less serious than they appear?
Or Italy's system is better?
I'm a bit unclear on the conclusion to draw.

edited for typos... I'm off for medicinal COFFEE, the liquid spell-check.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Please let's not get diverted by China and Dubya.
I think this is the wrong place to be reprimanding Americans - I don't see too many Ugly ones here. A more appropriate place for these comments would be over at Fox - but keep your head down.
PS - and there are some Ugly Brits too - some in #10 - some of those 100,000 are on our account.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

stint7 wrote:
Brian, your gynecological concluding comments only insults and in fact denigrates the point that you are trying to make.

Reference that point, our US system is not perfect.
However, your theory of a China comparison to our detriment does little for me.

I'm sure you are aware of the Chinese legal solution to drug problems....drum roll, and visual please. .........
Oh yeah, their legal system also charges the deceased family the cost of the one bullet used too


It was to this I made my earlier comment:

Quote:
Okay, let's draw the case, not borders :)


Criticism of the US (or UK) systems do have value, but only insofar as to counter the claim made by some that they are 'superior' systems and any other system that doesn't follow the same model is inferior. It has been the main subtext of the FOA and FOA backed US media's thrust.

However, there is a danger of expanding beyond that remit into political grounds in order to air various other 'dissatisfactions'. That path is divisive and therefore should be avoided at all costs. Let's not put this on a nationalistic footing, it's what the FOA most dearly want...they've worked their hardest to achieve that end. We must avoid giving them what they want and keep our eye on the rabbit...which is the case.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Brian, your gynecological concluding comments only insults and in fact denigrates the point that you are trying to make.

Reference that point, our US system is not perfect.
However, your theory of a China comparison to our detriment does little for me.

I'm sure you are aware of the Chinese legal solution to drug problems....drum roll, and visual please. .........
Oh yeah, their legal system also charges the deceased family the cost of the one bullet used too


It was to this I made my earlier comment:

Quote:
Okay, let's draw the case, not borders :)


Criticism of the US (or UK) systems do have value, but only insofar as to counter the claim made by some that they are 'superior' systems and any other system that doesn't follow the same model is inferior. It has been the main subtext of the FOA's and FOA backed US media's thrust.

However, there is a danger of expanding beyond that remit into political grounds in order to air variouys other 'dissatisfactions'. That path is divisive and therefore should be avoided at all costs. Let's not put this on a nationalistic footing, it's what the FOA most dearly want...they've worked their hardest to achieve that end. We must avoid giving them what they want and keep our eye on the rabbit...which is the case.



He said Rabbit! That's it! I'm off! /SomeAlibi exits hysterically stage left

:P

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Is it possible that Mignini put the spin of sexual assault on purpose, knowing that they wouldn't get house arrest? I have never been comfortable with the sexual aspect of this case. And when AK "thanked" the prosecution, she said you got it all wrong. As to the mask of the assassin, this may have been brought up before, and I may have missed it, but It could be that she has read or knows about Diabolik, who was a killer, and used lifelike masks to fool the authorities. And of course, AK, would definately see herself as the sexy Eva Kant. Also, Diabolik never used guns, only daggers and knives. RS would definately havebeen a fan of the "fumetti". Does that mean smoke , by the way?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
Please let's not get diverted by China and Dubya.
I think this is the wrong place to be reprimanding Americans - I don't see too many Ugly ones here. A more appropriate place for these comments would be over at Fox - but keep your head down.
PS - and there are some Ugly Brits too - some in #10 - some of those 100,000 are on our account.


No, for sure, we have no shortage of those. Would you like some? We could send you a job lot over on a boat at a competitive discount. No, in fact, we'll pay you take them off our hands. How about it? :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
He said Rabbit! That's it! I'm off! /SomeAlibi exits hysterically stage left


You caught that...I inserted it in there 'spesh ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I've done a couple of apologies in PM,s. Don't take what I said too literally.... but I was making a point....not very well.

But then I'm not very well......
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
Is it possible that Mignini put the spin of sexual assault on purpose, knowing that they wouldn't get house arrest? I have never been comfortable with the sexual aspect of this case. And when AK "thanked" the prosecution, she said you got it all wrong. As to the mask of the assassin, this may have been brought up before, and I may have missed it, but It could be that she has read or knows about Diabolik, who was a killer, and used lifelike masks to fool the authorities. And of course, AK, would definately see herself as the sexy Eva Kant. Also, Diabolik never used guns, only daggers and knives. RS would definately havebeen a fan of the "fumetti". Does that mean smoke , by the way?


Mignini doesn't do 'spin'. neither do any of the Italian prosecution office. The fact Meredith was sexually assaulted is represented clearly in the evidence, not only due to her physical injuries, but her positioning afterwards. Also, let's not forget that it was Amanda Knox herself that originally offered the sexual context 'we wanted to have some fun...Patrick wanted her'. Meredith was stripped almost completely naked. It doesn't matter if what happened to Meredith was for the purpose of getting off, to sexually degrade or even only to stage the scene. The sexual element was a theme and it was not put there by Mignini. This has nothing to do with spin.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
Is it possible that Mignini put the spin of sexual assault on purpose, knowing that they wouldn't get house arrest? I have never been comfortable with the sexual aspect of this case.


What spin of sexual assault? It is a fact that Meredith was sexually assaulted by Rudy Guede. Amanda Knox knew that Meredith was sexually assaulted before the results of Dr. Lalli’s autopsy report were presented to the court on 8 November 2007.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
Please let's not get diverted by China and Dubya.
I think this is the wrong place to be reprimanding Americans - I don't see too many Ugly ones here. A more appropriate place for these comments would be over at Fox - but keep your head down.
PS - and there are some Ugly Brits too - some in #10 - some of those 100,000 are on our account.


No, for sure, we have no shortage of those. Would you like some? We could send you a job lot over on a boat at a competitive discount. No, in fact, we'll pay you take them off our hands. How about it? :)


I'll take a couple.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Shirley wrote:
Michael wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
Please let's not get diverted by China and Dubya.
I think this is the wrong place to be reprimanding Americans - I don't see too many Ugly ones here. A more appropriate place for these comments would be over at Fox - but keep your head down.
PS - and there are some Ugly Brits too - some in #10 - some of those 100,000 are on our account.


No, for sure, we have no shortage of those. Would you like some? We could send you a job lot over on a boat at a competitive discount. No, in fact, we'll pay you take them off our hands. How about it? :)


I'll take a couple.


Do you live somewhere nice and warm Shirley? I'll volunteer. I'm a bit hysterical, but you can cope with that surely? /me evaporates in a logic circle of "don't call me Shirley" when the poster is actually called Shirley.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

OK. Thanks for the affirmation that it was a sexual assault. I knew it looked like it, and I may have been confused, because I read somewhere that there was RG's dna but no spermoza.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

You are not qualified SA. Sorry :P
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
OK. Thanks for the affirmation that it was a sexual assault. I knew it looked like it, and I may have been confused, because I read somewhere that there was RG's dna but no spermoza.


I don't understand why were you confused. Rudy Guede's DNA was found on a vaginal swab. He was convicted of sexual assault and murder in 2008.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I was confused because I knew RS's dna was on Meredith, but not that it was found on a vaginal swab. Now I know.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Shirley wrote:
Michael wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
Please let's not get diverted by China and Dubya.
I think this is the wrong place to be reprimanding Americans - I don't see too many Ugly ones here. A more appropriate place for these comments would be over at Fox - but keep your head down.
PS - and there are some Ugly Brits too - some in #10 - some of those 100,000 are on our account.


No, for sure, we have no shortage of those. Would you like some? We could send you a job lot over on a boat at a competitive discount. No, in fact, we'll pay you take them off our hands. How about it? :)


I'll take a couple.


Do you live somewhere nice and warm Shirley? I'll volunteer. I'm a bit hysterical, but you can cope with that surely? /me evaporates in a logic circle of "don't call me Shirley" when the poster is actually called Shirley.


Well, I think it's in the 40's (F) today so yea, I call it warm.
And hysteria is fine, the neighborhood will love you. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
OK. Thanks for the affirmation that it was a sexual assault. I knew it looked like it, and I may have been confused, because I read somewhere that there was RG's dna but no spermoza.


Well...I'm not going to get into the sex thing, but I think we all know there are many sexual acts that can take place without the requirement for ejaculation. Seamen is the most obvious evidence, but other acts leave traces too, especially when those acts are unwelcome or forced.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
I was confused because I knew RS's dna was on Meredith, but not that it was found on a vaginal swab. Now I know.


And not only vaginal.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

It's been an emotional couple of days. But while we're at it, when the appeals are all run out and they go down for good, I'd like to buy all the UK members of the board (and anyone travelling :) ) a pint or a glass of wine in London. Bear it in mind for some time hence ;)

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline French Mom


Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Re Mignini:

I was casually passing by here, and what do I see? Mignini was convicted??? Arrrggghhhh.... FOA must have been gloating for the past several hours. I'll read in more detail what was posted above a little later. I hope this latest development won't impact Meredith's case too much.

To Fiona, re: laced weed:

I hope you don't think I am the one engaging in "scare-mongering propaganda". I actually know very little about drugs and was just quoting something I found online.

To all of you:

I wish the conversation on this board did not spiral down to name calling and insults as it has tended to do lately.

As to the conversation about US vs. the rest of the world, I don't know where that leaves me with my dual French and US citizenships. After having lived in both countries, in France for 24 years and then in the US for 29, I can tell you that NO country is perfect. There are good and bad things everywhere believe me. I can go into more details about what I absolutely hate about France, and then what I completely loathe about the US, and then I can go into what is great about each country, and talk about it at nauseam (spelling?). But it's not the topic of this board. Please let's accept and appreciate each other's countries.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
It's been an emotional couple of days. But while we're at it, when the appeals are all run out and they go down for good, I'd like to buy all the UK members of the board (and anyone travelling :) ) a pint or a glass of wine in London. Bear it in mind for some time hence ;)


A roller coaster indeed.





This is how the case has been from day one. Much less so then in the first year though...imagine what that was like, new evidence was coming out almost daily :)

But it's a roller coaster on the path to truth. An episode occurs and people think thereon it's a home run. Not so. There will be constant ups and downs, right to the end. Some days, the FOA will have a good day, others Meredith will. This is the rule. There's a long way to go yet, so be ready for more ups and downs. Finally, the roller coaster 'will' stop and the truth 'will' win out. For now, keep your seatbelts buckled :)

I'll be happy to have a pint with you...are you buying? :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

More Mignini quotes on today's ruling.

A police officer and a prosecutor investigating the case of the monster of Florence were sentenced today by the court in the Tuscan capital for having illegally investigated journalists and police officers whom in their view were critical of the way they conducted the investigation.
Michele Giuttari, a police officer and head of the investigative serial killings group, who took over the Monster of Florence case, and Giuliano Mignini, who was the lead public prosecutor in the investigation into the death of British student Meredith Kercher, were convicted by the court in Florence for abuse of office converging with each other, repectively to one year and six months to one year and four months and interdiction from public office.

"I failed to see any abuse in my activity," said Mignini, adding that he will appeal the ruling after reading the (motivazione) reasons.
"This was an investigative activity judicially validated by the GIP (investigating magistrate judge) court and never objected. Among other things, the positions of the suspects have been archived at my request in some cases with ‘formula dubitativa’ ((Jools: insufficient prove)). Therefore I do not understand what would have constituted the abuse.”

The two were responsible for investigations carried out with wiretaps on journalists and police officers that according to the prosecution had a critical take with regard to inquiries about the case of Francesco Narducci, a doctor from Perugia involved in the case of the monster of Florence.

"As for the wiretaps and other investigative activity I deemed them relevant to the investigations we were completing and I still say that I would do the same again”, explained Mignini, who also contested the site of the proceedings: "This process should not be in Florence. There is a clear violation of Article 11 because also involved are Florentine magistrates. There is, therefore, an obvious incompetence of the office of prosecution."

Mignini and Giuttari They were cleared with the ‘formula piena’ ((Jools: full acquittal –did not occur-)) because the fact of a second similar allegation did not occur, that pertaining to alleged parallel investigations that they conducted on the Genoa prosecutor, who in turn was investigating Giuttari for forgery.
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/reuters/agenzia/11860/
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Right. I love the fact that I constantly learn, and become more , and, obviously, correctly informed. I will say that I perhaps gave too much thought into AK's final statements, feeling that she might give off some tells, as she was under duress, at that time. But, being the consumate liar that she is, I have come to the conclusion that she believes her lies, and that it will never be AK to spill the beans. Having the "support" from all over the world, and all the media attention, she will never come to terms with what she has done. The image of being the poster child of wrongful conviction, must to her, be kept up at all costs.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
I was confused because I knew RS's dna was on Meredith, but not that it was found on a vaginal swab. Now I know.


There was no spermatozoa, no proof that anyone ejaculated, anywhere... not AK... not Rs..... not RG

Rudy Guedes Dna (skin cells) were found in Meredith's vagina.

It wasn't obvious she was raped but maybe she had "rough sex"

The proof is only that RG "groped her".
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
It's been an emotional couple of days. But while we're at it, when the appeals are all run out and they go down for good, I'd like to buy all the UK members of the board (and anyone travelling :) ) a pint or a glass of wine in London. Bear it in mind for some time hence ;)


A roller coaster indeed.





This is how the case has been from day one. Much less so then in the first year though...imagine what that was like, new evidence was coming out almost daily :)

But it's a roller coaster on the path to truth. An episode occurs and people think from there on it's a home run. Not so. There will be constant ups and downs, right to the end. Some days, the FOA will have a good day, others Meredith will. This is the rule. There's a long way to go yet, so be ready for more. Finally, the roller coaster 'will' stop and the truth 'will' win out. For now, keep your seatbelts buckled :)

I'll be happy to have a pint with you...are you buying? :)


Yes, yes I am. I've been a member of an online clan for 15 years and once we all started meeting up, my real-life friendship with these 20 odd guys and girls of all ages, nationalities, personality types and any other distinguishing characteristics has been a hugely rich source of personal enjoyment to me. So yes, I'm buying. If I get 'em in, we might even establish lawyers are good for something after all ;)

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Quote:
His troubles may keep Mignini from taking part in the appeal. His lawyer noted that Friday's decision wasn't about the Knox prosecution.


In away, I hope Mignini cannot take part in Amanda's appeal; the sentence is upheld.

Who will Amanda Knox's Family and FOA have to blame then?
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
I'm sorry to people from the US, but I'm not about to take it away.

I don't really believe that all of you hold views that would kill 100,000.

But you who imprison a higher proportion of their population than any other country in the world including China? When you are 11 times more likely to find someone guilty than Italy?????

Do you think you get all of them right????? Do you think that Americans are 11 times more criminal than people in Italy??? They haven't got a fraction of your murder rate. You are the killers.

Look at the statistics, you twats.



Brian, I love you. No need to apologize to me or take anything back. I've always been inclined to define myself as anything BUT an American. You're absolutely right about Bush. Aside from being a complete and utter embarrassment, he is a guilty of crimes against humanity, along with his brain Rove and Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and the rest of their ilk. Unfortunately, there are far too many idiots here taking a flag, a fucking piece of cloth, way too seriously. But then I was the kid who got in trouble for refusing to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. Somehow, it always seemed wrong to me. Friends? Family? A just cause? Absolutely. But the stumbling, spoiled child-king that America is and her expectation that she is somehow entitled to everything she wants? No way, I want no part. Or as Fish from Marillion put it (oh, so much better than I ever could) "I will swear to have no nation, but I'm proud to own my heart"...

At any rate, look at it this way: We're all usurpers and imposters in this country.

xo
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SA:
"It's been an emotional couple of days. But while we're at it, when the appeals are all run out and they go down for good, I'd like to buy all the UK members of the board (and anyone travelling :) ) a pint or a glass of wine in London. Bear it in mind for some time hence ;)"

Yet another inducement to go back to London!
(Not that I am short of motivation, only funding. Sigh.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Corrina wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
I'm sorry to people from the US, but I'm not about to take it away.

I don't really believe that all of you hold views that would kill 100,000.

But you who imprison a higher proportion of their population than any other country in the world including China? When you are 11 times more likely to find someone guilty than Italy?????

Do you think you get all of them right????? Do you think that Americans are 11 times more criminal than people in Italy??? They haven't got a fraction of your murder rate. You are the killers.

Look at the statistics, you twats.



Brian, I love you. No need to apologize to me or take anything back. I've always been inclined to define myself as anything BUT an American. You're absolutely right about Bush. Aside from being a complete and utter embarrassment, he is a guilty of crimes against humanity, along with his brain Rove and Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and the rest of their ilk. Unfortunately, there are far too many idiots here taking a flag, a fucking piece of cloth, way too seriously. But then I was the kid who got in trouble for refusing to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. Somehow, it always seemed wrong to me. Friends? Family? A just cause? Absolutely. But the stumbling, spoiled child-king that America is and her expectation that she is somehow entitled to everything she wants? No way, I want no part. Or as Fish from Marillion put it (oh, so much better than I ever could) "I will swear to have no nation, but I'm proud to own my heart"...

At any rate, look at it this way: We're all usurpers and imposters in this country.

xo


I shall probably make an arse of myself posting this but that was a staggeringly powerful personal post. Right hook of clarity with everything behind it. Wow. Wish I had your way with words.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
It's been an emotional couple of days. But while we're at it, when the appeals are all run out and they go down for good, I'd like to buy all the UK members of the board (and anyone travelling :) ) a pint or a glass of wine in London. Bear it in mind for some time hence ;)


A roller coaster indeed.





This is how the case has been from day one. Much less so then in the first year though...imagine what that was like, new evidence was coming out almost daily :)

But it's a roller coaster on the path to truth. An episode occurs and people think from there on it's a home run. Not so. There will be constant ups and downs, right to the end. Some days, the FOA will have a good day, others Meredith will. This is the rule. There's a long way to go yet, so be ready for more. Finally, the roller coaster 'will' stop and the truth 'will' win out. For now, keep your seatbelts buckled :)

I'll be happy to have a pint with you...are you buying? :)


Yes, yes I am. I've been a member of an online clan for 15 years and once we all started meeting up, my real-life friendship with these 20 odd guys and girls of all ages, nationalities, personality types and any other distinguishing characteristics has been a hugely rich source of personal enjoyment to me. So yes, I'm buying. If I get 'em in, we might even establish lawyers are good for something after all ;)


Hello SA,

I live on that island west of you and travel frequently to London. When this saga is resolved I will be pleased to meet up for a pint (or two) with all from here, entirely at their convenience. drin-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Corrina wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
I'm sorry to people from the US, but I'm not about to take it away.

I don't really believe that all of you hold views that would kill 100,000.

But you who imprison a higher proportion of their population than any other country in the world including China? When you are 11 times more likely to find someone guilty than Italy?????

Do you think you get all of them right????? Do you think that Americans are 11 times more criminal than people in Italy??? They haven't got a fraction of your murder rate. You are the killers.

Look at the statistics, you twats.



Brian, I love you. No need to apologize to me or take anything back. I've always been inclined to define myself as anything BUT an American. You're absolutely right about Bush. Aside from being a complete and utter embarrassment, he is a guilty of crimes against humanity, along with his brain Rove and Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and the rest of their ilk. Unfortunately, there are far too many idiots here taking a flag, a fucking piece of cloth, way too seriously. But then I was the kid who got in trouble for refusing to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. Somehow, it always seemed wrong to me. Friends? Family? A just cause? Absolutely. But the stumbling, spoiled child-king that America is and her expectation that she is somehow entitled to everything she wants? No way, I want no part. Or as Fish from Marillion put it (oh, so much better than I ever could) "I will swear to have no nation, but I'm proud to own my heart"...

At any rate, look at it this way: We're all usurpers and imposters in this country.

xo


I shall probably make an arse of myself posting this but that was a staggeringly powerful personal post. Right hook of clarity with everything behind it. Wow. Wish I had your way with words.


I've been told I can alienate half the room just by opening my mouth. Truth over popularity I always say. But then, I was raised by wolves. Okay, hippies. Same difference.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hammerite wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
It's been an emotional couple of days. But while we're at it, when the appeals are all run out and they go down for good, I'd like to buy all the UK members of the board (and anyone travelling :) ) a pint or a glass of wine in London. Bear it in mind for some time hence ;)


A roller coaster indeed.





This is how the case has been from day one. Much less so then in the first year though...imagine what that was like, new evidence was coming out almost daily :)

But it's a roller coaster on the path to truth. An episode occurs and people think from there on it's a home run. Not so. There will be constant ups and downs, right to the end. Some days, the FOA will have a good day, others Meredith will. This is the rule. There's a long way to go yet, so be ready for more. Finally, the roller coaster 'will' stop and the truth 'will' win out. For now, keep your seatbelts buckled :)

I'll be happy to have a pint with you...are you buying? :)


Yes, yes I am. I've been a member of an online clan for 15 years and once we all started meeting up, my real-life friendship with these 20 odd guys and girls of all ages, nationalities, personality types and any other distinguishing characteristics has been a hugely rich source of personal enjoyment to me. So yes, I'm buying. If I get 'em in, we might even establish lawyers are good for something after all ;)


Hello SA,

I live on that island west of you and travel frequently to London. When this saga is resolved I will be pleased to meet up for a pint (or two) with all from here, entirely at their convenience. drin-)


I learned my drinking from a girlfriend in Dundrum when I was a teenager H and by god did I love that experience. On the other hand, if it's Isle of Man I have a lot of friends there too :) . Either way, if I know both those western isles, the concept of "two" might be statistically challenged on the evening in question. I shall look forward to it immensely :D

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Yes, yes I am. I've been a member of an online clan for 15 years and once we all started meeting up, my real-life friendship with these 20 odd guys and girls of all ages, nationalities, personality types and any other distinguishing characteristics has been a hugely rich source of personal enjoyment to me. So yes, I'm buying. If I get 'em in, we might even establish lawyers are good for something after all


I'm always enormously affectionate to anyone that buys me a beer....sort of like a cat that gets scratched behind the ear. Strange...I don't know why.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Corrina wrote:
I've been told I can alienate half the room just by opening my mouth. Truth over popularity I always say. But then, I was raised by wolves. Okay, hippies. Same difference.


I got the hippie thing :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
I learned my drinking from a girlfriend in Dundrum when I was a teenager H and by god did I love that experience. On the other hand, if it's Isle of Man I have a lot of friends there too . Either way, if I know both those western isles, the concept of "two" might be statistically challenged on the evening in question. I shall look forward to it immensely


I think Hammerite means Ireland.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:53 pm   Post subject: 112   

Michael, it's out of the question that the carabinieri who called Raffaele's phone and spoke to Battistelli were not the first ones to arrive. If Battistelli had spoken to them while the house was already full of other carabinieri, he would have testified to this and it would be known to everyone and particularly to Bongiorno. He testified to nothing of the kind.

You make a good point that the carabinieri car seen on the CCTV camera may not have been the first one to arrive, but in that case, it's one that arrived even later than the first one, making the postal police arrive even later than 12:56, which is totally impossible.

You think Bongiorno "tried to pull a fast one", but the prosecutors are not so stupid as to accept her reasoning without themselves checking such evidence as police logs (perhaps erroneous or unclear, such as the postal police log which states that Battistelli and Marzi were sent out on reception of Meredith's second phone), and Bongiorno is not so stupid as to present a reasoning which would collapse at the very first bit of obvious contradictory evidence. And in the event, it did not collapse, since the prosecution abandoned the original claim that the CCTV camera clock was 10 minutes ahead of true time.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

‘I'd like to buy all the UK members of the board (and anyone travelling ) a pint or a glass of wine in London. Bear it in mind for some time hence’

Appreciate the offer. I don’t drink or live in the UK. Can you send me the equivalent in cash when the time comes. Thanks in advance.
:D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
Michael, it's out of the question that the carabinieri who called Raffaele's phone and spoke to Battistelli were not the first ones to arrive. If Battistelli had spoken to them while the house was already full of other carabinieri, he would have testified to this and it would be known to everyone and particularly to Bongiorno. He testified to nothing of the kind.


If they 'were' the first, why would he have not testified to that fact also, under your logic? There was no testimony made on the stand, by Battistelli or anyone else as to when the carabinieri arrived. Battistelli wasn't standing sentry at the cottage gate, how would he know who arrived when..aside from the postal police? The postal police were Polizia (Battistelli's jurisdiction/command), the carabinieri were well...carabinieri, a completely different force not under Battistelli's control. Battistelli was simply helping out since his men were the first on the scene and called it in.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I learned my drinking from a girlfriend in Dundrum when I was a teenager H and by god did I love that experience. On the other hand, if it's Isle of Man I have a lot of friends there too . Either way, if I know both those western isles, the concept of "two" might be statistically challenged on the evening in question. I shall look forward to it immensely


I think Hammerite means Ireland.



Yeah I know, it's just that I'm a dweeb for accuracy, so if you say west of the mainland, I'm going to cover all the bases :) . By god I loved Dundrum (Dublin) as a teenager. Blinkers at the Leopardstown race-course. Sigh. Happy days.

Hang on. Anglesey. I missed that one. Argh! :)

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
You make a good point that the carabinieri car seen on the CCTV camera may not have been the first one to arrive, but in that case, it's one that arrived even later than the first one, making the postal police arrive even later than 12:56, which is totally impossible.


Their arrival at 12:56 is totally impossible also. Why are some even entertaining it?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I learned my drinking from a girlfriend in Dundrum when I was a teenager H and by god did I love that experience. On the other hand, if it's Isle of Man I have a lot of friends there too . Either way, if I know both those western isles, the concept of "two" might be statistically challenged on the evening in question. I shall look forward to it immensely


I think Hammerite means Ireland.


Ireland it is Michael. By coincidence it was the postings of a fellow countryman FinnMacCool on TJMK that captured my attention in this case initially. So much detail, so easy to follow, what a gift. Where did that Fenian get to?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
You think Bongiorno "tried to pull a fast one", but the prosecutors are not so stupid as to accept her reasoning without themselves checking such evidence as police logs (perhaps erroneous or unclear, such as the postal police log which states that Battistelli and Marzi were sent out on reception of Meredith's second phone), and Bongiorno is not so stupid as to present a reasoning which would collapse at the very first bit of obvious contradictory evidence. And in the event, it did not collapse, since the prosecution abandoned the original claim that the CCTV camera clock was 10 minutes ahead of true time.


They did. Why do you think Micheli rejected the defence argument?

And as for Bongiorno, she'll happily throw anything she thinks might stand the slightest chance of sticking. It failed with Micheli. Better luck with the next set of judges, let's try it again.

And before you wax on the sophistication of Bongiorno, shall we revise some of the ridiculous arguments she offered during this trial? Shall we count the failures? (cell phone black spots, downloading cartoons, phones in Sr Elisabetta's garden before 10 PM, dust...shall I go on?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Michael, it's out of the question that the carabinieri who called Raffaele's phone and spoke to Battistelli were not the first ones to arrive. If Battistelli had spoken to them while the house was already full of other carabinieri, he would have testified to this and it would be known to everyone and particularly to Bongiorno. He testified to nothing of the kind.


If they 'were' the first, why would he have not testified to that fact also, under your logic? There was no testimony made on the stand, by Battistelli or anyone else as to when the carabinieri arrived. Battistelli wasn't standing sentry at the cottage gate, how would he know who arrived when..aside from the postal police? The postal police were Polizia (Battistelli's jurisdiction/command), the carabinieri were well...carabinieri, a completely different force not under Battistelli's control. Battistelli was simply helping out since his men were the first on the scene and called it in.



There was no call to Raffaele's phone at 13:29 or from the police at all. His first call after 112 was from his father. AK's phone was called at 13:29. As AK herself wrote, there were several different carabinieri arriving at several different times. If the car park showed police outside at 13:29, they were already there anyway, so who did Battistelli speak to at 13:29? Probably yet another unit in the vicinity.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
You make a good point that the carabinieri car seen on the CCTV camera may not have been the first one to arrive, but in that case, it's one that arrived even later than the first one, making the postal police arrive even later than 12:56, which is totally impossible.


I guess I am missing the logic here. How is the arrival time of the postal police tied to the arrival of the carabinieri car?

I still think it is far more interesting to consider what happened between 12:40 and 12:47. I think the postal police arrived, which is why Raffaele did not call his sister until 12:50.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
You make a good point that the carabinieri car seen on the CCTV camera may not have been the first one to arrive, but in that case, it's one that arrived even later than the first one, making the postal police arrive even later than 12:56, which is totally impossible.


I guess I am missing the logic here. How is the arrival time of the postal police tied to the arrival of the carabinieri car?

I still think it is far more interesting to consider what happened between 12:40 and 12:47. I think the postal police arrived, which is why Raffaele did not call his sister until 12:50.


Why is it that nobody who throws up smoke in various areas wants to talk about that time period?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Is the comedy thing still planned for later in January? I can't help but wonder if this latest Mignini thing will be fodder for the comic routines.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:53 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Emerald wrote:
Is the comedy thing still planned for later in January? I can't help but wonder if this latest Mignini thing will be fodder for the comic routines.


The headline comedian that The Bard was in contact with didn't seem to have a clue about the case. I think the goal is to get money by attracting people who are out for a night of humor, not necessarily FOA.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Emerald wrote:
Is the comedy thing still planned for later in January? I can't help but wonder if this latest Mignini thing will be fodder for the comic routines.


Comedy Underground Fundraiser scheduled for Jan 27.
Previous statement was that no comedy references were going to be presented about trial or participants.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/0 ... eld-jan-27
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Michael, it's out of the question that the carabinieri who called Raffaele's phone and spoke to Battistelli were not the first ones to arrive. If Battistelli had spoken to them while the house was already full of other carabinieri, he would have testified to this and it would be known to everyone and particularly to Bongiorno. He testified to nothing of the kind.


If they 'were' the first, why would he have not testified to that fact also, under your logic? There was no testimony made on the stand, by Battistelli or anyone else as to when the carabinieri arrived. Battistelli wasn't standing sentry at the cottage gate, how would he know who arrived when..aside from the postal police? The postal police were Polizia (Battistelli's jurisdiction/command), the carabinieri were well...carabinieri, a completely different force not under Battistelli's control. Battistelli was simply helping out since his men were the first on the scene and called it in.


Just to add to this, why do you think it was Bongiorno herself didn't make a big deal during the trial of 'when' the carabinieri arrived? I followed this trial from beginning to end. I don't recall the carabinieri arrival time 'ever' being an issue.

Therefore, I stand by what I said. The document I embedded earlier in the thread was presented to Micheli in the pre-trial...it was rejected due to the data he had on hand from the postal police and carabinieri. The defence didn't challenge in the main trial by using that document again. Bolint was right, the defence in the trial challenged the arrival time of the Postal Police...but not with that document. That was all done and dusted in the pre-trial.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I learned my drinking from a girlfriend in Dundrum when I was a teenager H and by god did I love that experience. On the other hand, if it's Isle of Man I have a lot of friends there too . Either way, if I know both those western isles, the concept of "two" might be statistically challenged on the evening in question. I shall look forward to it immensely


I think Hammerite means Ireland.


Ireland it is Michael. By coincidence it was the postings of a fellow countryman FinnMacCool on TJMK that captured my attention in this case initially. So much detail, so easy to follow, what a gift. Where did that Fenian get to?




Well, you're in good company with Finn :) He pops in and out. He'll be along at some point.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hi everybody.
I've not been round on forums for some time, and I didn't read back yet all missed pages. I'm coming here obviously because it's time for the Mignini's party.
Yes the Mignini's conviction it might add a flavour of interest and mistery to the overall story, i find it an aestetically interesting element for the baroque complication of a thriller book.
As a citizen, the Florentine trial leaves me perplexed, i found it strange and difficult to understand from the beginning, in some ways it is one of that cases expressing some of the highbow problems within the legal system, a sufference in some legal procedures but also aboutpolitical issues and parts of Italian society (in particular, the actual role of the press), it is one of those cases that leaves you doubtful in both cases of acquittal or conviction.
But some aspects could be enlightned a bit.

SomeAlibi wrote:

Quote:
Pete, as I said, I already read them. And in fact, even if one hadn't, it's actually irrelevant if one supports the Italian judicial process for reasons that follow: My point is not a subjective one but an objective one to do with the conviction. If one believes in the process of Italian law, which is essential to the correct conviction of the three murderers, one has to believe in the process that has found Mignini guilty also. Sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. And that process has found a public official guilty of a matter that goes to his honesty and appropriate behaviour and he has been found criminally wanting of that.


As I said, I cannot subscribe entirely to SomeAlibi's opinion.
Essentiallly, I am not competent in having a judgement on this prosecutor's conduct and on this verdict. but what we can state clearly is the following:
The main feature of the Mignini's trial is that there were no facts to ascertain. There were some allegations actually but all that was factual, in this case, was won by Mignini. The tapes were proven to be a false evidence and the prosecution lost its charge against Mignini and Giuttari, no illegal wiretapping.
In the charges we are talking about in this case, the most important thing is that all facts were known.

The judges decision was not in order to discover whether Mignini and Giuttari committed something or not. All actions were all known and public. The only question to be answered by the Court was whether the actions were legal or not.

I am not competent to give an opinion on this, although I have some ideas, concerning not only the proceedings but also the kind of society and context in which those alleged crimes by Giuttari and Mignini could have taken place. I know for example who the alleged victims of those crimes are and who they work for.

For now I only take care of putting in clear this said starting point: bare in mind that all Mignini's and Giuttari's actions were known. It is not that an officer was 'caught' doing something wrong, instead everybody knows and claims the same facts. This trial was not about findings on facts, it was a decision on matter of interpretation of law, on what was legal and what was not. Thus, essentially a different kind of trial from the Meredith's case, a really different issue, this one really affecting the 'system' rather than the single Mignini operation (imho).
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thanks Yummi. in other words, it was political. Am I understaning you right?

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to explain something rather complex here. I'm just trying to get a grasp.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Emerald wrote:
Is the comedy thing still planned for later in January? I can't help but wonder if this latest Mignini thing will be fodder for the comic routines.


As far as I know, it's still going ahead.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Yummi - I don't really buy that. There are criminal cases where the facts are disputed and then there are cases where the facts are agreed. This case it is the latter as you say but if you are a prosecutor it is your job to know what the law is and not fall foul of it at all. You have to look at the conviction - it is a *criminal* finding not a procedural hiccup. It is a custodial sentence even if it is suspended. IMVHO we would do well to acknowledge this is a serious issue and the most serious sort of finding that can be found against a criminal prosecutor for now, pending appeal. The board needs equality, and there's no equality in pretending this doesn't matter much.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Jools wrote:
More Mignini quotes on today's ruling.


Thanks for that Jools.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The headline comedian that The Bard was in contact with didn't seem to have a clue about the case. I think the goal is to get money by attracting people who are out for a night of humor, not necessarily FOA.


Why on Earth would someone blindly lend their name and reputation to a convicted murderer under those circumstances?

When the Prep School played a regular game for the benefit of Amanda, were the players asked their opinion? If they did not believe in 'the cause', would the players have been benched from the game?

I just don't understand the fascination Seattle has for this criminal.


Last edited by Emerald on Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:44 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Yummi - I don't really buy that. There are criminal cases where the facts are disputed and then there are cases where the facts are agreed. This case it is the latter as you say but if you are a prosecutor it is your job to know what the law is and not fall foul of it at all. You have to look at the conviction - it is a *criminal* finding not a procedural hiccup. It is a custodial sentence even if it is suspended. IMVHO we would do well to acknowledge this is a serious issue and the most serious sort of finding that can be found against a criminal prosecutor for now, pending appeal. The board needs equality, and there's no equality in pretending this doesn't matter much.


But there is always 'interpretation' of the law. And that's where problems can occur. One body thinks a 't' needs to be crossed here while another doesn't...

PM's are not a 'body', they have to work in the field, day to day. This wasn't a day to day case. It was connected to the Monster of Florence, the inspiration for Hannible Lector.

Let's get a basic grasp of what was going on...Turco (PM of Florence) was recorded in his office complaining of the fact that he could not proceed in his investigation due to his hands being tied by 'powerful outside influences'. It was his job to try and solve the case, but he'd been nullified. Who steps in then? Who's the knight in shining armour? Not the PM of Florence. So, Mignini stepped in. He had to walk close to the wire and put himself on the line to do it. He could of chosen not to, just stayed and sat in his office doing shit. That would be the clever thing, if you cared only about yourself. Meanwhile, the MOF may still be out there...killing more people. But it's okay, Mignini would be doing everything by the book. When public offices fail, who investigates those? As a citizen, which sort of PM would you prefer?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Yummi - I don't really buy that. There are criminal cases where the facts are disputed and then there are cases where the facts are agreed. This case it is the latter as you say but if you are a prosecutor it is your job to know what the law is and not fall foul of it at all. You have to look at the conviction - it is a *criminal* finding not a procedural hiccup. It is a custodial sentence even if it is suspended. IMVHO we would do well to acknowledge this is a serious issue and the most serious sort of finding that can be found against a criminal prosecutor for now, pending appeal. The board needs equality, and there's no equality in pretending this doesn't matter much.


But there is always 'interpretation' of the law. And that's where problems can occur. One body thinks a 't' needs to be crossed here while another doesn't...

PM's are not a 'body', they have to work in the field, day to day. This wasn't a day to day case. It was connected to the Monster of Florence, the inspiration for Hannible Lector.

Let's get a basic grasp of what was going on...Turco (PM of Florence) was recorded in his office complaining of the fact that he could not proceed in his investigation due to his hands being tied by 'powerful outside influences'. It was his job to try and solve the case, but he'd been nullified. Who steps in then? Who's the knight in shining armour? Not the PM of Florence. So, Mignini stepped in. He had to walk close to the wire and put himself on the line to do it. He could of chosen not to, just stayed and sat in his office doing shit. That would be the clever thing, if you cared only about yourself. Meanwhile, the MOF may still be out there...killing more people. But it's okay, Mignini would be doing everything by the book. When public offices fail, who investigates those? As a citizen, which sort of PM would you prefer?


Michael, the answer is very simple for me. You either stay within the law or you don't. He had lines of conduct that could have been within the law and trust me as someone who deals with this stuff every day, the line where he stepped over the law would have been extremely clear to him. Breaking the law is utterly unacceptable for a man working for the state. Totally, utterly and without question not OK. We cannot possibly have it any other way. There's no subjective "not so bad" you can put on a convicted criminal charge against someone or else you completely undermine the case for the correct justice that was the conviction of the three murderers.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Quote:
Yummi - I don't really buy that. There are criminal cases where the facts are disputed and then there are cases where the facts are agreed. This case it is the latter as you say but if you are a prosecutor it is your job to know what the law is and not fall foul of it at all. You have to look at the conviction - it is a *criminal* finding not a procedural hiccup. It is a custodial sentence even if it is suspended. IMVHO we would do well to acknowledge this is a serious issue and the most serious sort of finding that can be found against a criminal prosecutor for now, pending appeal. The board needs equality, and there's no equality in pretending this doesn't matter much.


I don't know who you are addressing but I don't like to be misquoted. Since there isn't any previous comment by me which you can refer to as 'pretending this doesn't matter much' , i'd be glad if you specify you are talking about something else and correct therfore your previous.

What i wanted to state clearly is that this is a case in which the facts are agreed. This is ALL. There is nothing to buy. The *criminal* finding is not a finding on facts. It deals with the different interpretation of the law, on which not only I am not competent as I said, but also I emphasize i cannot comment it because we don't have an idea untill we have the written motivation. I don't know why this finding was criminal, for what reasons.

The fact - i am absolutely sure about - is that this does not matter at all to the Meredith case. There is no doubt of this. I'm no advocate of Mignini's reputation, and i have no interest in this subject. Mignini is out from the Meredith murder case. While he will continue to work as a prosecutor, he has prosecuted several other cases in this last two years - in matters of drug, violence and petty crime of any kind - and he has some new cases right at the moment in these days. Do you think the other defendants and conviicted would claim innocence because the prosecutor had a problem himself? Do you think their trials will be overturned and people released? No, this argument doesn't exist.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael, the answer is very simple for me. You either stay within the law or you don't. He had lines of conduct that could have been within the law and trust me as someone who deals with this stuff every day, the line where he stepped over the law would have been extremely clear to him. Breaking the law is utterly unacceptable for a man working for the state. Totally, utterly and without question not OK. We cannot possibly have it any other way. There's no subjective "not so bad" you can put on a convicted criminal charge against someone or else you completely undermine the case for the correct justice that was the conviction of the three murderers.


Much like if say, you work in the ministry of defence and happen to discover that somewhere in the Home Office laws are being broken that threaten peoples lives, but you take it no further because you do things by the book and your ministry rules dictate you say nothing in those circumstances? You do nothing and that's integrity. You do 'something' and that's bad ethics?

Meanwhile...the MOF kills again...and again....and again (horrifically) and you're the one that has to go speak to the families each time and say...'I'm so sorry, but there's nothing I can do, I don't know anything'.

Honourable.

Who says he didn't stay within the law? He maintains he did and the court already found in his favour once. They then found against him in the prosecution appeal. They may still find in his favour in his appeal. This suggests to me that he didn't 'break' the law, rather he walked the line, on the cliff. Yet, you speak about this like it's clear cut. Your world appears to be black and white. I wish I knew a real one of those I could live in. Things would be so much simpler.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:
windfall wrote:
Thanks for this, I am going to try and follow it up. A while back I mentioned the rhetoric that surrounded Knox, and the terms used by the prosecution. I had suggested that terms such as "luciferina" were unhelpful: the strategy of (pretty much literally) demonizing AK had the potential to backfire (The DARKNESS DESCENDING book actually suggests that it may have done, referring to a kind of backlash against the prosecution's summing up which the defence tried to capitalise on with the mocking Amanda the Ripper riposte). Someone pointed out that this kind of flowery language which some of us might find alienating might actually be rooted in a cultural difference between Germanic and Romance languages, which I thought was a fascinating insight.

Yes, but I thought we established earlier in the thread that 'luciferina' doesn't mean in Italian quite what you thought it did.


It's quite possible that I missed a post or two - I try to keep up, honest I do! - but I don't remember anything definitive being deduced from that discussion, although a number of possible connotations were aired. What I had deduced (and I may be wrong) was that it did mean literally she-devil, but that it might be used in a casual sense, in the same way we might say, "those kids ate all the cookies - the little devils!". It seems unlikely that the prosecution would be deploying the term in such a way, and I have found the discussion of heightened language - rhetoric - more convincing. I am not pushing an agenda on this point, just looking for answers. Or at least a range of possibilities.


Here is the good oil on luciferina (adjective, feminine):

diabolical

luciferino
agg.
1 (di Lucifero) Luciferian, of Lucifer
2 (fig.) (diabolico) diabolic, satanic.

And luciferina (noun, feminine) is s'thing else altogether:

luciferin
luciferina
s.f. (biochim.) luciferin.

luciferin

lu·cif·er·in (l-sfr-n)
n.
A chemical substance present in the cells of bioluminescent organisms, such as fireflies, that produces an almost heatless, bluish-green light when oxidized under the catalytic effects of luciferase and ATP.


Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Yummi - I don't really buy that. There are criminal cases where the facts are disputed and then there are cases where the facts are agreed. This case it is the latter as you say but if you are a prosecutor it is your job to know what the law is and not fall foul of it at all. You have to look at the conviction - it is a *criminal* finding not a procedural hiccup. It is a custodial sentence even if it is suspended. IMVHO we would do well to acknowledge this is a serious issue and the most serious sort of finding that can be found against a criminal prosecutor for now, pending appeal. The board needs equality, and there's no equality in pretending this doesn't matter much.


I don't know who you are addressing but I don't like to be misquoted. Since there isn't any previous comment by me which you can refer to as 'pretending this doesn't matter much' , i'd be glad if you specify you are talking about something else and correct therfore your previous.

What i wanted to state clearly is that this is a case in which the facts are agreed. This is ALL. There is nothing to buy. The *criminal* finding is not a finding on facts. It deals with the different interpretation of the law, on which not only I am not competent as I said, but also I emphasize i cannot comment it because we don't have an idea untill we have the written motivation. I don't know why this finding was criminal, for what reasons.

The fact - i am absolutely sure about - is that this does not matter at all to the Meredith case. There is no doubt of this. I'm no advocate of Mignini's reputation, and i have no interest in this subject. Mignini is out from the Meredith murder case. While he will continue to work as a prosecutor, he has prosecuted several other cases in this last two years - in matters of drug, violence and petty crime of any kind - and he has some new cases right at the moment in these days. Do you think the other defendants and conviicted would claim innocence because the prosecutor had a problem himself? Do you think their trials will be overturned and people released? No, this argument doesn't exist.



I suspect we don't really view this in a way that will interchange easily. To me there are two components in someone's guilt in a criminal charge. No.1 the facts of the case. No.2 The technical failing of the criminal charge. Saying that 1. is not in play here because the facts are agreed really doesn't change anything at all to me. It's all about 2 - did he break the law. And a court has found he did. So there's really no defence to that pending the appeal which I would LOVE for him to be acquitted on. But for now - he broke the law and that's very serious for a public officer.

As to the relevance on the case of Meredith, I've been perfectly clear on this several times so won't repeat myself again. It's disappointing that's not acknowledged.

I will now terminate my comments on this thread. It's obviously emotive and I think it's best to move on.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Corrina wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
I'm sorry to people from the US, but I'm not about to take it away.

I don't really believe that all of you hold views that would kill 100,000.

But you who imprison a higher proportion of their population than any other country in the world including China? When you are 11 times more likely to find someone guilty than Italy?????

Do you think you get all of them right????? Do you think that Americans are 11 times more criminal than people in Italy??? They haven't got a fraction of your murder rate. You are the killers.

Look at the statistics, you twats.



Brian, I love you. No need to apologize to me or take anything back. I've always been inclined to define myself as anything BUT an American. You're absolutely right about Bush. Aside from being a complete and utter embarrassment, he is a guilty of crimes against humanity, along with his brain Rove and Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and the rest of their ilk. Unfortunately, there are far too many idiots here taking a flag, a fucking piece of cloth, way too seriously. But then I was the kid who got in trouble for refusing to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. Somehow, it always seemed wrong to me. Friends? Family? A just cause? Absolutely. But the stumbling, spoiled child-king that America is and her expectation that she is somehow entitled to everything she wants? No way, I want no part. Or as Fish from Marillion put it (oh, so much better than I ever could) "I will swear to have no nation, but I'm proud to own my heart"...

At any rate, look at it this way: We're all usurpers and imposters in this country.

xo

Sorry but, the political wheel does not define the vast majority of Americans. Yes, we choose who we put in power but, we have no control over those who believe the lies nor, can we make the lazy vote. Brian, I love you dearly but, I won't be labeled a "twat" nor a usurper or imposter. I am proud of the person I am and my country does not define me. At any rate, I figure I am in the same category as Corrina: offending a whole room when I open my mouth....LOL! And probably now I'll be saying "never mind" like Roseanne Rosanna Danna.........
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Sitting on the sidelines here watching this interesting debate over the ramifications of today's Mignini judgment, I'm getting a sense how this might play out.
The FOA will spin this as hard as they can as evidence of a corrupt Third World legal system - it might give them some PR traction and raise some extra money in the US - but this still won't help their cause in the one place that matters: Italy.
Meanwhile - in Italy - the Italians know best the exquisite intricacies of their own system, and it's not going to make too much difference to the Kercher case and upcoming appeals.
Simultaneously, on this board - well . . who knows how that game will go?


Last edited by tigerfish on Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Quote:
Michael, the answer is very simple for me. You either stay within the law or you don't. He had lines of conduct that could have been within the law and trust me as someone who deals with this stuff every day, the line where he stepped over the law would have been extremely clear to him.


I think I disagree significantly from this premise. This does not mean I am advocating on Mignini's position. But I don't think the law always shows a simple visible line. I don't thing the 'law' is a simple concept on itself.
In Italian we have two words for 'law', the first is diritto, and the second legge.
Legge is literally law. From Latin lex (legem) and the verb 'leggere'= to read: what you can read. It is the law in the meanings of the single norm, or in overall sense intended as the list of code numbers (la legge = all the laws). But legge emphasizes the literal aspect, detailed and analitical point of view, all what is written, on the same level.
The word diritto is what is deemed more precious by Italian law professors. The expression 'the cradle of law' is la culla del diritto and Roman Law is diritto romano. The word 'diritto' means 'straight' or 'right'. Something is right when conform to diritto, not necessarilly when conform to law. The concept of diritto is that of a structured organism, or system, not a list that you can read but something that has to be acted. It is a structure, has a mechanism, has different levels, inner living principles and an orientation. It includes the possibility of violating laws, even to nullify an cancel laws or to leave them unapplied. I don't want to be boring. Just the emphasis put on the distinction leads to reflect.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi is coming back, right? He makes such good points, and, well, he has such a great sense of humour. And, umm, the free beer?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
I suspect we don't really view this in a way that will interchange easily. To me there are two components in someone's guilt in a criminal charge. No.1 the facts of the case. No.2 The technical failing of the criminal charge. Saying that 1. is not in play here because the facts are agreed really doesn't change anything at all to me. It's all about 2 - did he break the law. And a court has found he did. So there's really no defence to that pending the appeal which I would LOVE for him to be acquitted on. But for now - he broke the law and that's very serious for a public officer.

As to the relevance on the case of Meredith, I've been perfectly clear on this several times so won't repeat myself again. It's disappointing that's not acknowledged.

I will now terminate my comments on this thread. It's obviously emotive and I think it's best to move on.



Well, as Yummi has tried to explain to you, there are no 'facts' against Mignini...it's about legal interpretation.

And 2, did he break the law? Again, it is all about the interpretation.

A court has found he did so. Another court has found he didn't do so. So where does that leave us? It leaves us the next court for the final interpretation. Considering this, I would suggest that blowing a gasget is premature.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:18 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

For what little it is worth.

It seems to me that this may be another problem arising from the different types of legal system. In this country (and I think in America) the procedures to be followed are very,very important to the functioning of the system. So if the police need to tap a phone they need to get formal authorisation from the home office and if they do not get that the are guilty of breaking the law and whatever they get cannot be used against anyone. This is in line with common law principle which puts great emphasis on process: and we hear a lot about folk who "got off on a technicality". That is a cliche and it is seldom true but its existence shows the centrality of procedure. As it happens there is alway pressure to undermine that and so the legal profession here is fierce in defence of it: for this is where poltics can undermine the rule of law slowly. So for example the "right to silence" debate: and perhaps more graphically the status of the prisoners at guantanamo with all the implications for due process.

Since Italian law is based on a search for truth, unlike our adversarial system, those procedures are not important in the same way, perhaps. The safeguard is in the direct oversight not in the rules. I may be way off beam in this but what is difficult for me in what Yummi explained is this: As I understand what she is saying the prosecutor did make the overseeing judge aware of what he was going to do and they agreed he should do it (at least I think that is what is meant by "it was known"). If that is the case it is very difficult to see how that could then turn out to be illegal after the event. I think that is what is puzzling me most. But hopefully someone can set me straight for I feel sure I must have got something wrong

The other thing which occurs to me is this: if there is a problem with political influence in any system then action t combat that is sometimes going to step over the line. The example which springs to mind is the investigation of civil rights worker who were murdered in america and investigated by the FBI. I am going to make myself look foolish here for my only knowledge of that very famous case comes from a film: so not a good or reliable source. But I will bull on because the point I am trying to make is that there was active obstruction to that investigation from local officials and that is why people were brought in from outside. And they had to push the limits of procedure even in an adversarial system because that system was corrupt in that place and at that time

My impression from reading about the Italian legal system to the small extent I have, is that this has been a recent problem in Italy, and the fierce independence of the prosecutors is fostered because of that history. So with a focus on finding the truth rather than a winner; and a system which encourages independence (with oversight) it is likely that the procedural issues are less important under this system.

Again I may be very off here and I would welcome correction from thos who know better. But it strikes me that this may be the reason that this finding against Mignini seems so very bad to me and to SA: and not so much to others better versed in a different system? Or maybe not :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:25 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
And probably now I'll be saying "never mind" like Roseanne Rosanna Danna.........


The late, great Gilda also created the wacky Roseanne, but "Never mind" was the catch phrase of the ever-confused, but endearing Emily Litella, famous for her advocacy of "violins on TV":

http://www.hulu.com/watch/2364/saturday ... lins-on-tv






(edited after watching the clip for the first time in a LONG time to correct my own faulty memory about Emily's concern!**and, of course, typos!**)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Amanda Knox Prosecutor Convicted Of Abuse In Another Case
by Staff


POST CHRONICLE



Jon Hemming wrote:
Mignini will be allowed to continue working while the appeals process runs its course, his lawyer said.

The two officials were found guilty of tapping the phones of journalists and police officers.

His conviction is expected to hand ammunition to critics of the Knox trial.

The family of the 22-year-old American, who is appealing her conviction, has strongly criticized the Italian legal system and the prosecution's methods.

The "Monster of Florence" case involved the serial killings of four pairs of lovers while they were parked in cars in the isolated countryside around Florence.

Two men were convicted of the murders of four people. Another man who was initially convicted of eight murders and then acquitted on a first appeal died before the start of his second appeals trial.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lisareik


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:42 pm

Posts: 62

Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

stilicho wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
...

Except in the questions about the first phone call that is.

...

Anyway, back to Edda. Throughout the programme when interviewed she is talking to the interviewer with minor eye contact breaks as I say. All except, that is, during describing the first phone call. In that section she has furrowed eyebrows throughout, her hands come into play a lot and she is making open handed explanation gestures and she is looking at the floor a great deal. It's especially weird since the second phone call she describes as "far worse" (because they had discovered Meredith then) but she is heads up, looking at the interviewer, passive hands, no furrowed eyebrows - nothing. Or throughout the rest of the programme. Coincidence? Maybe. But mostly I'm thinking... what is it that's so hard to describe about that first phone call Edda? What does the crying Mama Knox know?


That first phone call really struck me, too, especially since a discussion about the cell phones came up at the JREF forum.

Even without the video there's something horribly wrong about the two accounts (EM and AK) of this 88 second call in the middle of the night Seattle time. Edda's court testimony is not convincing and I thought it actually served to undermine her credibility and her daughter's at the same time.

Why wouldn't AK's lawyers talk to Edda about what she was going to say? Not that lawyers would ever tell their clients to lie but why not get the story straight? Or at least believable?

I don't believe either of their stories about that first phone call. The Polizia were already at the cottage. That is indisputable. And that would be the very first thing you'd talk about--put yourself in AK's shoes--when calling home. Perhaps after "Listen, Mom, I'm in trouble".

That's the detail that both of them are working so hard to conceal--I am speculating but with a large degree of certainty. So why wouldn't they get their stories straight? It's not as if AK hadn't changed her story about other--even less important--things.

Bizarre. huh-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox Prosecutor Convicted Of Abuse In Another Case
by Staff


POST CHRONICLE



Jon Hemming wrote:
Mignini will be allowed to continue working while the appeals process runs its course, his lawyer said.

The two officials were found guilty of tapping the phones of journalists and police officers.

His conviction is expected to hand ammunition to critics of the Knox trial.

The family of the 22-year-old American, who is appealing her conviction, has strongly criticized the Italian legal system and the prosecution's methods.

The "Monster of Florence" case involved the serial killings of four pairs of lovers while they were parked in cars in the isolated countryside around Florence.

Two men were convicted of the murders of four people. Another man who was initially convicted of eight murders and then acquitted on a first appeal died before the start of his second appeals trial.


Funny how they managed to word the headline to echo Amanda's "Somebody hit me!" claims by leaving out the "of Office" part of the info. I'm guessing that was no accident.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:22 am   Post subject: Sollecito and Knox and the arrival of the police - scenario   

The police are lost - driving up and down the road outside the cottage - they even phone the station to ask for directions. Nervous Sollecito within the apartment performing the cleanup sees them from a window. Realises immediately that he will be discovered at a crime scene without any explanation. Panicks - phones his sister "save me - 'fix things'" - is told to phone the police - the police know police are already on their way and he is asked to phone back. Shortly after - the postal police are on their way up to the cottage - cold Raffaele and Knox are in a side bedroom - a flurry of calls have been made AK phoned her mother saying "mum I've done something wrong" - there is some argument when Sollecito hears her say this - also quite importantly Knox forgets specifically that call (later at the trial - after records of the initial call have been put to Mellas). Sollecito phones the police again to report a "crime". Batistelli of the postal police reports that Knox and Sollecito did not go into a side room after, but were coming out of a side room when he arrived at the cottage. He sees this as he walks straight in - the door is wide open - Soll. and the flustered Knox incessantly offering explanations in broken italian immediately state their story of having just arrived to find an apparent break-in - blood in the bathroom. Stories not straight between Knox and Sollecito - he in the call reports "lots" of blood - Knox on the stand reports slight blood streaks which she didn't even notice right away. After getting the stories of the protagonists, Sollecito and AK are required to stand around for quite some time as more and more police arrive. They have no convincing explanation - Knox is photographed shortly after still trying to get police to believe her story.

In this photo she's paused - hands together preaching - "please believe me" - is looking at the policeman directly "believe this point" - lips pursed together - a policeman is stroking his jawline (question - 'what's going' on) - another policeman has turned away hand clasped to brow "oh no she's lying"

Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:46 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tiziano wrote:
windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:
windfall wrote:
Thanks for this, I am going to try and follow it up. A while back I mentioned the rhetoric that surrounded Knox, and the terms used by the prosecution. I had suggested that terms such as "luciferina" were unhelpful: the strategy of (pretty much literally) demonizing AK had the potential to backfire (The DARKNESS DESCENDING book actually suggests that it may have done, referring to a kind of backlash against the prosecution's summing up which the defence tried to capitalise on with the mocking Amanda the Ripper riposte). Someone pointed out that this kind of flowery language which some of us might find alienating might actually be rooted in a cultural difference between Germanic and Romance languages, which I thought was a fascinating insight.

Yes, but I thought we established earlier in the thread that 'luciferina' doesn't mean in Italian quite what you thought it did.


It's quite possible that I missed a post or two - I try to keep up, honest I do! - but I don't remember anything definitive being deduced from that discussion, although a number of possible connotations were aired. What I had deduced (and I may be wrong) was that it did mean literally she-devil, but that it might be used in a casual sense, in the same way we might say, "those kids ate all the cookies - the little devils!". It seems unlikely that the prosecution would be deploying the term in such a way, and I have found the discussion of heightened language - rhetoric - more convincing. I am not pushing an agenda on this point, just looking for answers. Or at least a range of possibilities.


Here is the good oil on luciferina (adjective, feminine):

diabolical

luciferino
agg.
1 (di Lucifero) Luciferian, of Lucifer
2 (fig.) (diabolico) diabolic, satanic.

And luciferina (noun, feminine) is s'thing else altogether:

luciferin
luciferina
s.f. (biochim.) luciferin.

luciferin

lu·cif·er·in (l-sfr-n)
n.
A chemical substance present in the cells of bioluminescent organisms, such as fireflies, that produces an almost heatless, bluish-green light when oxidized under the catalytic effects of luciferase and ATP.




Ah, Ok, so what the prosecution was saying was not that Amanda Knox was a little devil, but that she was a "chemical substance present in the cells of bioluminescent organisms". It all makes sense to me now. :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Michael, the answer is very simple for me. You either stay within the law or you don't. He had lines of conduct that could have been within the law and trust me as someone who deals with this stuff every day, the line where he stepped over the law would have been extremely clear to him.


I think I disagree significantly from this premise. This does not mean I am advocating on Mignini's position. But I don't think the law always shows a simple visible line. I don't thing the 'law' is a simple concept on itself.
In Italian we have two words for 'law', the first is diritto, and the second legge.
Legge is literally law. From Latin lex (legem) and the verb 'leggere'= to read: what you can read. It is the law in the meanings of the single norm, or in overall sense intended as the list of code numbers (la legge = all the laws). But legge emphasizes the literal aspect, detailed and analitical point of view, all what is written, on the same level.
The word diritto is what is deemed more precious by Italian law professors. The expression 'the cradle of law' is la culla del diritto and Roman Law is diritto romano. The word 'diritto' means 'straight' or 'right'. Something is right when conform to diritto, not necessarilly when conform to law. The concept of diritto is that of a structuredorganism, or system, not a list that you can read but something that has to be acted. It is a structure, has a mechanism, has different levels, inner living principles and an orientation. It includes the possibility of violating laws, even to nullify an cancel laws or to leave them unapplied. I don't want to be boring. Just the emphasis put on the distinction leads to reflect.


Yummi, we have exactly the same distinction in English between what is RIGHT or WRONG and the concept of what is LEGAL or ILLEGAL. Unfortunately the two concepts of right and legal do not always marry happily!!

Perhaps that is why there is such a profusion of (cynical) jokes about the law and lawyers!

We can go back to Bible and the words of Jesus when he was questioned by the Pharisee:

Matthew 22:20-22 (King James Version)

And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
Top Profile 

Offline strano_cammino


Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:14 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hi,

I posted this before but I'll just post it again in case anyone missed it the last time.

I will be in Perugia for a few days from tomorrow. If anyone needs pictures or anything else, please send me a PM.

Requests I got so far:

Picture of the place where Rudi bought his kebab, and a picture of Dempsey's bar.

Checking the possibility of hearing screams from Nara's house, checking how long it takes to get from Rudi's place and Rafaele's place to the cottage.

See how safe it is/feels around the cottage at night.

See if the walls to the place where the cell phones were found is open 24h a day.


If there is anything else, send me a PM. Considering I am with a friend who is not all that interested in this case, please don't make it anything too difficult or time-consuming because i don't want to bore her or have her thinking I'm crazy :p
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 10 of 12 [ 2769 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


29,421,715 Views