Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[Malkmus]

What makes you think that it cannot be proven in court that Frank knows his statements are false? Thus far, the courts believe Mignini.
It should be a very straight forward task of demonstrating proof. Either there are drug dealers that are connected with Mignini, or there are not. Common sense suggests that it is not reasonable to assume that prosecutors have ties to drug dealers, so ... let's see the proof. In fact, I have to wonder why the drug dealers aren't coming to Frank's rescue at this moment ... couldn't they also help Knox by demonstrating that the prosecutor is a druggie? Doesn't everyone want to help Knox?

Otto, which is it? That he's buddies with drug dealers, using drug dealers as pawns in his trials, or using drugs himself? You make a lot of concrete assumptions about the nature of the allegations without even knowing what they are or if there is truth to them. If you do know, please fill us in. I think knowing what the allegations are first would be a good starting point for this discussion. But you're putting the cart before the horse and just assuming that Sfarzo has lied about something and is therefore guilty. Right now all we know is that Sfarzo has claimed something and Mignini disagrees. Until we know what exactly is going on it's premature to say "Frank is lying so of course Mignini is suing him". If he has lied, then I agree that a lawsuit is probably justified, but as we know Mignini already has an abuse of power conviction and an ongoing investigation by the CPJ which doesn't make his claims look good. Sfarzo, as far as I know, has never lied about anything and has apparently had the crap beaten out of him for voicing his opinion about Mignini - so I feel he is the more honest of the two.

 

[otto]

You missed my point. I wasn't commenting on the integrity of the show, rather drawing a comparison between the allegations made by CNN and Sfarzo and simply speculating whether we can say the same suit will be launched against them.



You can start with all the lawsuits launched against people writing about their case. However, his "unscrupulous tactics" reach farther than just this case as has been well-documented already, most recently by the CPJ's investigation. So, his first conviction for abuse of power wasn't enough, he's now being investigated by a whole separate entity.



Silencing reporters you disagree with or dislike because they write unfavorable things about you is not the job of a prosecutor. This recent affair with Sfarzo isn't the only incident. You seem to want to ignore everything else he's done.




Did I say anything about her? No. But now that you ask, she is the one who originally told the press the defense ewouldn't be getting the documents they requested for the DNA results. So I would say "withholding evidence" would be an unscrupulous tactic, for sure.



Is that a fact? Or just wild speculation. We don't even know yet if there is truth to what Sfarzo wrote or what, even, he wrote specifically. It was on his website so it's kind of baffling that no one really knows what got Mignini fired up.



The CPJ seems to think what he is doing falls under that, and since they have no stake in Amanda Knox's or Rafaelle Sollecito's guilt or innocence I find that they are good impartial judge's of Mignini's tactics.

I didn't watch the CNN entertainment about convicted murderer Amanda Knox, so I have no idea what sort of spin was put on the prosecutor. I have read reviews and do know that the program required that the viewer ignore the facts in order to accept what was presented in the program. One need only look as far as the associated photos of Knox as a wee lass to know that the program has nothing to do with Meredith Kercher's murder.

What is the CPJ? Is that something else that Doug Preston is associated with? Isn't he the guy that injected himself into a murder investigation and then wondered why police wanted to talk with him?

 

[Nova]

Otto, which is it? That he's buddies with drug dealers, using drug dealers as pawns in his trials, or using drugs himself? You make a lot of concrete assumptions about the nature of the allegations without even knowing what they are or if there is truth to them. If you do know, please fill us in. I think knowing what the allegations are first would be a good starting point for this discussion. But you're putting the cart before the horse and just assuming that Sfarzo has lied about something and is therefore guilty. Right now all we know is that Sfarzo has claimed something and Mignini disagrees. Until we know what exactly is going on it's premature to say "Frank is lying so of course Mignini is suing him". If he has lied, then I agree that a lawsuit is probably justified, but as we know Mignini already has an abuse of power conviction and an ongoing investigation by the CPJ which doesn't make his claims look good. Sfarzo, as far as I know, has never lied about anything and has apparently had the crap beaten out of him for voicing his opinion about Mignini - so I feel he is the more honest of the two.

Great summary. I would only add that we know libel suits can be filed in Italy over nothing, since AK has been charged for merely saying her head was touched in a way that didn't injure her.

 

[Malkmus]

I didn't watch the CNN entertainment about convicted murderer Amanda Knox, so I have no idea what sort of spin was put on the prosecutor. I have read reviews and do know that the program required that the viewer ignore the facts in order to accept what was presented in the program. One need only look as far as the associated photos of Knox as a wee lass to know that the program has nothing to do with Meredith Kercher's murder.

What is the CPJ? Is that something else that Doug Preston is associated with? Isn't he the guy that injected himself into a murder investigation and then wondered why police wanted to talk with him?

CPJ = commitee to protect journalists

 

[Nova]

I didn't watch the CNN entertainment...

Okay, now you've called the program "propaganda" and "entertainment", all without the benefit of watching it.

It basically took one segment to talk about Amanda Knox growing up and getting to Perugia and renting her room. In that segment, the show demonstrated that neither AK nor RS had criminal histories that would make them likely suspects to murder MK. The show did NOT claim this proved their innocence; it merely said they weren't obvious choices for a sex murder.

The rest of the show was devoted to questions raised thus far by the appeal and claimed the findings thus far were hardly favorable to the prosecution. All of which is true--except to the most diehard Mignini supporters. It did NOT claim that the appellate court would therefore overturn the verdicts.

Speaking of Mignini, he was asked about each matter and given a chance to answer it. As in real life, he had a hard time doing so.

It's true the program didn't go over every piece of evidence proffered by the prosecution in the original trial, but then there really wasn't time in one hour. Instead, the show dealt with those issues that have received the most attention--here and elsewhere--over the past month.

The last section of the program dealt with AK's parents, their lives, and their feelings about the appeal. Basically, they all said they were afraid to be optimistic.

I agree this wasn't a comprehensive summary of the entire case, but I don't know how you'd get all that from a TV show anyway.

 

[otto]

Otto, which is it? That he's buddies with drug dealers, using drug dealers as pawns in his trials, or using drugs himself? You make a lot of concrete assumptions about the nature of the allegations without even knowing what they are or if there is truth to them. If you do know, please fill us in. I think knowing what the allegations are first would be a good starting point for this discussion. But you're putting the cart before the horse and just assuming that Sfarzo has lied about something and is therefore guilty. Right now all we know is that Sfarzo has claimed something and Mignini disagrees. Until we know what exactly is going on it's premature to say "Frank is lying so of course Mignini is suing him". If he has lied, then I agree that a lawsuit is probably justified, but as we know Mignini already has an abuse of power conviction and an ongoing investigation by the CPJ which doesn't make his claims look good. Sfarzo, as far as I know, has never lied about anything and has apparently had the crap beaten out of him for voicing his opinion about Mignini - so I feel he is the more honest of the two.

I'm not making assumptions about Frank's comments about an Italian prosecutor, I have instead posted a link to what it is alleged that Frank said. If Frank had any proof whatsoever, that information would have presented in the court, and the case would have been tossed. That has not happened.

 

[otto]

CPJ = commitee to protect journalists

And ... is this something that Doug Preston is behind?

 

[otto]

Okay, now you've called the program "propaganda" and "entertainment", all without the benefit of watching it.

It basically took one segment to talk about Amanda Knox growing up and getting to Perugia and renting her room. In that segment, the show demonstrated that neither AK nor RS had criminal histories that would make them likely suspects to murder MK. The show did NOT claim this proved their innocence; it merely said they weren't obvious choices for a sex murder.

The rest of the show was devoted to questions raised thus far by the appeal and claimed the findings thus far were hardly favorable to the prosecution. All of which is true--except to the most diehard Mignini supporters. It did NOT claim that the appellate court would therefore overturn the verdicts.

Speaking of Mignini, he was asked about each matter and given a chance to answer it. As in real life, he had a hard time doing so.

It's true the program didn't go over every piece of evidence proffered by the prosecution in the original trial, but then there really wasn't time in one hour. Instead, the show dealt with those issues that have received the most attention--here and elsewhere--over the past month.

The last section of the program dealt with AK's parents, their lives, and their feelings about the appeal. Basically, they all said they were afraid to be optimistic.

I agree this wasn't a comprehensive summary of the entire case, but I don't know how you'd get all that from a TV show anyway.

Thanks for the recap. Knox, the little girl, doesn't interest me. She is an unremarkable woman that has done nothing with her life. She is convicted of murdering a British woman in Italy.

Every criminal starts somewhere. Scott Peterson, Brad Cooper, and et cetera ... all criminals with their first conviction for murder. Are we supposed to believe that because every first offense has no prior offense, the accused must be innocent? What kind of logic are we looking at when it is argued that because someone's first offense is murder, they cannot be guilty?

I do know that the program required the viewer to ignore what they knew of the case and pretend that the only evidence was the knife and the bra clasp. I suppose many incorrect conclusions can be drawn if we ignore the majority of the evidence.

If CNN was inclined to present a program about the victim, Meredith Kercher, I might see some point in taking an hour of my time to see what slant is put on it, but a program about a dull Seattle woman's childhood ... not that interested.

That said, if anyone is interested in viewing the CNN propaganda about Knox, the little girl: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/videos/perugia/CNNDrewGriffinReport.avi

 

[SMK]

And ... is this something that Doug Preston is behind?

Well, here is the link. It hardly looks like something Preston cooked up---and its concerns range far beyond the Knox case. Don't you think? http://www.cpj.org/

 

[Nova]

I'm not making assumptions about Frank's comments about an Italian prosecutor, I have instead posted a link to what it is alleged that Frank said. If Frank had any proof whatsoever, that information would have presented in the court, and the case would have been tossed. That has not happened.

Is this the link you mean?

"Sfarzo, the man responsible for the Perugia Shock blog, accused Mignini of having ties to drug dealers."
http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=479102

Because "having ties to drug dealers" is so vague it almost has to be a true statement. Surely any prosecutor anywhere has "ties to drug dealers." That doesn't mean the prosecutor takes drugs himself or that his "ties" have been misused.

This sounds very much like a Florence court that is embarrassed by the increasing criticism of ILE and the judicial system in the international press, criticism that at least one link suggested was seeping into the Italian media as well.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for the recap. Knox, the little girl, doesn't interest me. She is an unremarkable woman that has done nothing with her life. She is convicted of murdering a British woman in Italy.

Every criminal starts somewhere. Scott Peterson, Brad Cooper, and et cetera ... all criminals with their first conviction for murder. Are we supposed to believe that because every first offense has no prior offense, the accused must be innocent? What kind of logic are we looking at when it is argued that because someone's first offense is murder, they cannot be guilty?

I do know that the program required the viewer to ignore what they knew of the case and pretend that the only evidence was the knife and the bra clasp. I suppose many incorrect conclusions can be drawn if we ignore the majority of the evidence.

If CNN was inclined to present a program about the victim, Meredith Kercher, I might see some point in taking an hour of my time to see what slant is put on it, but a program about a dull Seattle woman's childhood ... not that interested.

That said, if anyone is interested in viewing the CNN propaganda about Knox, the little girl: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/videos/perugia/CNNDrewGriffinReport.avi

I believe I was quite clear that at no time was it claimed that a person can't commit murder as his or her first criminal offense. But the murderers you (and dgfred) mention are all people who killed family members because they tired of the responsibility of caring for them or being tied to them.

That isn't the case with MK. All AK had to do was find another room to let, if she disliked MK (which doesn't even appear to be the case).

AK is an "unremarkable woman" who has done nothing with her life? She's been in prison since she was 20. MK didn't have time to do anything particularly remarkable either, but I don't think we should hold that against her.

The program didn't require the viewer to "forget" anything; it didn't even draw a conclusion as to AK's or RS' guilt or innocence. It merely noted that some of the most significant evidence proffered by the prosecution couldn't be confirmed during the appellate review. And so far, that is the truth.

 

[otto]

Well, here is the link. It hardly looks like something Preston cooked up---and its concerns range far beyond the Knox case. Don't you think? http://www.cpj.org/

Any thoughts on why Preston is repeatedly mentioned throughout the letter? Is that merely accidental, or is it because he has something to do with it?

 

[otto]

Is this the link you mean?



Because "having ties to drug dealers" is so vague it almost has to be a true statement. Surely any prosecutor anywhere has "ties to drug dealers." That doesn't mean the prosecutor takes drugs himself or that his "ties" have been misused.

This sounds very much like a Florence court that is embarrassed by the increasing criticism of ILE and the judicial system in the international press, criticism that at least one link suggested was seeping into the Italian media as well.

Are you serious? You think it's common for prosecutors to have "ties" to drug dealers? Not in my world, and that's a fact. In my world, prosecutors convict drug dealers, they don't have "ties" to them.

 

[wasnt_me]

considering the shoeprints... at this point, I'm not sure I'd trust them to match a pair of socks

I can't even do that!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Nova]

I'm not making assumptions about Frank's comments about an Italian prosecutor, I have instead posted a link to what it is alleged that Frank said. If Frank had any proof whatsoever, that information would have presented in the court, and the case would have been tossed. That has not happened.

Read SMK's link again. Frank didn't even know there was an action pending against his website until he was notified via email that it was being taken down.

So when, exactly, did Frank have time to present evidence in court supporting the truth of what he had written?

 

[otto]

I believe I was quite clear that at no time was it claimed that a person can't commit murder as his or her first criminal offense. But the murderers you (and dgfred) mention are all people who killed family members because they tired of the responsibility of caring for them or being tied to them.

That isn't the case with MK. All AK had to do was find another room to let, if she disliked MK (which doesn't even appear to be the case).

AK is an "unremarkable woman" who has done nothing with her life? She's been in prison since she was 20. MK didn't have time to do anything particularly remarkable either, but I don't think we should hold that against her.

The program didn't require the viewer to "forget" anything; it didn't even draw a conclusion as to AK's or RS' guilt or innocence. It merely noted that some of the most significant evidence proffered by the prosecution couldn't be confirmed during the appellate review. And so far, that is the truth.

Correct. There is nothing remarkable about Knox except that she's a murderer - certainly nothing to be proud of, and certainly nothing to make a TV show about. There are plenty of people, even children, that commit murder as a first offense.

Go to 34:16 in the CNN Knox show. There you will hear that case seems to be hanging on two small pieces of evidence. In order to believe this, one must forget all the other evidence.

There's also that funny (or not so funny) statement at 8:04 in the clip where the guy says "for the next hour, forget everything you know."

 

[otto]

Read SMK's link again. Frank didn't even know there was an action pending against his website until he was notified via email that it was being taken down.

So when, exactly, did Frank have time to present evidence in court supporting the truth of what he had written?

Frank was required to have a little chat with the prosecutor a few weeks ago. If he's claiming that he didn't see this coming, then I think he is again being untruthful.

 

[wasnt_me]

Thanks, wasnt_me! This is definitely one of those things that make one go "Hmmmm..."

I'm a little nervous about "previously unknown info" because I've read of too many cases (including the West Memphis 3) where it was claimed certain info was withheld only to find that LE officers were blabbing to their families and the info was common knowledge on the street or had been printed somewere obscure.

I'm not saying the defense is lying, just that I don't know how to confirm that they are right that the window wasn't identified anywhere that RG could know about it.

I do wonder why AK and RS would break Filomena's window instead of AK's (or, as you point out, simply breaking the door lock). Frankly, if I were covering up for a murder, it would be worth losing my computer, jewelry, etc., to do a better job of making it look like a burglary. (But I know people have "staged" burglaries before without actually removing anything.)

I completely agree. with RG it might be a little different just cause he was in Germany at the time, but we can't know for certain without scouring the web through eternity that he hadn't read the info. I didn't come up with that about breaking the door, but it makes sense. They wouldn't even have to break the door, since it already had a problem of not staying closed if you didn't lock it. So they could have like FR help the police come to the conclusion that it had swung open on its own. I agree, if I was staging a breakin, I'd lose some items to make it look better, but you never know what others are thinking. I'd love to know, though, how to clean up all my invisible prints and DNA, but leave someone else's. That's magic!

 

[Nova]

Correct. There is nothing remarkable about Knox except that she's a murderer - certainly nothing to be proud of, and certainly nothing to make a TV show about. There are plenty of people, even children, that commit murder as a first offense.

Go to 34:16 in the CNN Knox show. There you will hear that case seems to be hanging on two small pieces of evidence. In order to believe this, one must forget all the other evidence.

There's also that funny (or not so funny) statement at 8:04 in the clip where the guy says "for the next hour, forget everything you know."

I'm sorry to be blunt, my friend, but you seem to lose your reason when it comes to Knox. Obviously, she was a gifted linguist (particularly by the language-impaired standards of Americans), and she graduated with honors from an exclusive prep school. She worked multiple jobs to save up to study abroad. She is "ordinary" only in your heavily biased view of her.

And, frankly, Otto, without the knife or the bra clasp, there is NO evidence that RS was involved in the murder of MK.

The evidence against AK consists of little more than a statement (coerced or no) that is otherwise false in every way. And somebody's recollection of glass fragments that may have been on top of something, BUT no photos to my knowledge of what was underneath the tossed clothing. I've certainly seen no expert discussion of glass shattering except from Hendry.

***

I'll grant you "forget everything you know" was rather melodramatic, but the program assumed the viewer wasn't you or even I, but somebody who had heard little to nothing about the case since the original flurry of overheated publicity. That's what the program was advising the viewer to forget.

 

[Nova]

Frank was required to have a little chat with the prosecutor a few weeks ago. If he's claiming that he didn't see this coming, then I think he is again being untruthful.

Perhaps. I don't know. But you claimed that Frank was unable to verify in Court the statements challenged by Mignini. I don't see any mention of when Frank would have had the chance.

In Italy it appears to be a case of "yank the site down first" and we'll talk about it later. At least that's how it's done when the justice system is embarrassed.

Looks pretty corrupt from this side of the pond.