Just a piece on Amanda's slander charges: http://seattlest.com/2011/05/18/the_trials_of_amanda_knox_continue.php
Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13
- Thread starter fran
- Start date
-
-
GA GA - Worth Co. BlkMale ~40 UP11098, dismembered torso in field Sep'88- Latest: The4TierBridge
- Status
From full Giuliano Mignini CNN Interview Transcript, Downloaded as Word doc from Perugia Murder File:http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375
Mignini: I can tell you our impression when I arrived on the scene. I arrived basically, I believe, I think around 2:30 p.m. on Nov. 2, and I found myself facing a crime that obviously looked like - this is the impression I got in the first place and it was subsequently confirmed by the investigations and the proceeding - a murder of a sexual nature, in which there was this girl who was undressed or nearly so, a young woman who was covered with this, with this quilt. And the other thing which struck us, which was of immediate interest, I said this on other occasions and I repeat it because I’ve said it also at the first trial, was the break-in. And it appeared immediately – the climbing, the simulation of climbing, with a stone thrown through the window, through two shutters that were there, that left open quite a narrow space, rather limited room between them – immediately that appeared to us to be a simulation. . .
16'34'' CNN: Before there was the evidence from the forensic police, did you arrive at your conclusions with respect to Amanda Knox by instinct?
Mignini: . . . that the behavior of two young people and in particular, this actually is [missing words]... it was a detail that was even more obvious regarding Amanda, [we thought] was such that the two were considered involved in the crime. Thus before that, it was an initial assessment of those elements that we had at the beginning to orient the investigation toward them. Then confirmations came. And there were many elements of corroboration at the end; they were very significant, very numerous. But at the beginning we had these elements, again, in particular the issue of simulation...................
It actually makes for fascinating reading....:waitasec:
Mignini: I can tell you our impression when I arrived on the scene. I arrived basically, I believe, I think around 2:30 p.m. on Nov. 2, and I found myself facing a crime that obviously looked like - this is the impression I got in the first place and it was subsequently confirmed by the investigations and the proceeding - a murder of a sexual nature, in which there was this girl who was undressed or nearly so, a young woman who was covered with this, with this quilt. And the other thing which struck us, which was of immediate interest, I said this on other occasions and I repeat it because I’ve said it also at the first trial, was the break-in. And it appeared immediately – the climbing, the simulation of climbing, with a stone thrown through the window, through two shutters that were there, that left open quite a narrow space, rather limited room between them – immediately that appeared to us to be a simulation. . .
16'34'' CNN: Before there was the evidence from the forensic police, did you arrive at your conclusions with respect to Amanda Knox by instinct?
Mignini: . . . that the behavior of two young people and in particular, this actually is [missing words]... it was a detail that was even more obvious regarding Amanda, [we thought] was such that the two were considered involved in the crime. Thus before that, it was an initial assessment of those elements that we had at the beginning to orient the investigation toward them. Then confirmations came. And there were many elements of corroboration at the end; they were very significant, very numerous. But at the beginning we had these elements, again, in particular the issue of simulation...................
It actually makes for fascinating reading....:waitasec:
From same document of CNN Transcript of full Mignini interview:
20'13'' CNN: And what was the proof, because from what we understand the scientific evidence does not point to them ... the two of them?
20'25'' Mignini: Well, then: so now I, to list all the evidence [elementi] that was found, it would be [missing words] on the other hand they have been mentioned in the First Instance sentence report by the Court of Assize. Mmm, then ...
20'50'' The issue of the simulation ... The issue of the simulation, in that house just in those days, i.e. 1, 2 November, the second was a Friday, the third was a Saturday, the fourth was a Sunday, on that weekend in 2007 there was only Meredith and Amanda in the house in Via della Pergola. Since the two Italian girls were away from home: Filomena Romanelli was with her boyfriend in another part of town, she was staying there overnight, while Laura Mezzetti was in the province of Viterbo.
21'36'' So in the house that night there was only Amanda and the victim. Amanda said she was in Sollecito's house, which is actually a five-minute walk from the house of Meredith. Because of the distance, we must take into account the distance, you shall go to see these places, you see that the distances are very short, very limited. So who might have an interest in simulating intrusion by a stranger? Only a person who might be worried about being implicated in the crime. There was no sign of forced entry through the front door, so this is an extremely significant element. Then we have again the inconsistencies that can be detected in the statements. There is the fact, then during the investigation the homeless man, the homeless man came in, who very precisely identified the two young people, he said he saw the two basically the night between the 1st and 2nd, a few meters from the house where the crime happened, in which it was committed, presumably at a time compatible with the crime. While instead the two young people stated they had remained all the time at Raffaele’s home. There is another detail which at the beginning of the investigation [was] something that has, let’s say, intensified the elements for us; it was the fact that Raffaele at the beginning had attempted, let’s say he attempted to state that he stayed at home while Amanda had been out and she returned to Raffaele’s house I think at about two a.m. Then this approach has been kept by Raffaele during the hearing for validation of arrest, and afterwards was abandoned as Sollecito’s defense line became more, let’s say, supportive of Amanda. But at an earlier stage Raffaele stated this position of separation between the two.
20'13'' CNN: And what was the proof, because from what we understand the scientific evidence does not point to them ... the two of them?
20'25'' Mignini: Well, then: so now I, to list all the evidence [elementi] that was found, it would be [missing words] on the other hand they have been mentioned in the First Instance sentence report by the Court of Assize. Mmm, then ...
20'50'' The issue of the simulation ... The issue of the simulation, in that house just in those days, i.e. 1, 2 November, the second was a Friday, the third was a Saturday, the fourth was a Sunday, on that weekend in 2007 there was only Meredith and Amanda in the house in Via della Pergola. Since the two Italian girls were away from home: Filomena Romanelli was with her boyfriend in another part of town, she was staying there overnight, while Laura Mezzetti was in the province of Viterbo.
21'36'' So in the house that night there was only Amanda and the victim. Amanda said she was in Sollecito's house, which is actually a five-minute walk from the house of Meredith. Because of the distance, we must take into account the distance, you shall go to see these places, you see that the distances are very short, very limited. So who might have an interest in simulating intrusion by a stranger? Only a person who might be worried about being implicated in the crime. There was no sign of forced entry through the front door, so this is an extremely significant element. Then we have again the inconsistencies that can be detected in the statements. There is the fact, then during the investigation the homeless man, the homeless man came in, who very precisely identified the two young people, he said he saw the two basically the night between the 1st and 2nd, a few meters from the house where the crime happened, in which it was committed, presumably at a time compatible with the crime. While instead the two young people stated they had remained all the time at Raffaele’s home. There is another detail which at the beginning of the investigation [was] something that has, let’s say, intensified the elements for us; it was the fact that Raffaele at the beginning had attempted, let’s say he attempted to state that he stayed at home while Amanda had been out and she returned to Raffaele’s house I think at about two a.m. Then this approach has been kept by Raffaele during the hearing for validation of arrest, and afterwards was abandoned as Sollecito’s defense line became more, let’s say, supportive of Amanda. But at an earlier stage Raffaele stated this position of separation between the two.
Interesting the translation of the transcripts of the CNN 'piece' linked on TJMK now... see for yourself how they attempted to make Mignini 'look' bad as they butchered, misled, twisted, ommitted, edited and changed what he actually said. Sad to see but completely expected by the faithful. :loser:
Oops, SMK provided it. Thanks SMK.
Oops, SMK provided it. Thanks SMK.
You are most welcome!!
Yes: The transcript is extremely long, it goes on for many, many pages, - I see now, 36 pages! - and Mignini answers in very long detailed paragraphs.....I am still in the midst of reading it right now....
Mignini's closing of the CNN Interview:
25'32'' Mignini: I hope that, I do not know if it's over, think it’s over, I hope that there was a [..?.. *question] ..., there is one, a lot of different views, including the interpretation of events that occurred, that are very different. I tried, I didn’t have means because the judge is not allowed to speak much, and not much freely. I had read many times, I also received messages that were not exactly pleasant. Then also I read a lot of things that were totally unfounded and I hope I made a contribution. That means, you can have different opinions. I [think]… Sure, you can have different opinions, I, as the magistrate who works as a prosecutor; it was me in the investigation at the first instance trial and now as an assistant on appeal. You can have different opinions, I respect opinions but I expect that you do not put into question the good faith and intellectual honesty of the investigators, because there are no [*prejudices? reasons?] towards those young people who were totally unknown. We did what we deemed [was right] doing, what we found, which one may not subscribe to. I respect all opinions, but the ones who were responsible for conducting the investigation and supporting what is called the accusation, that anyway, let’s repeat it, is not an accusation but an organ of justice, [those ones] are us.
25'32'' Mignini: I hope that, I do not know if it's over, think it’s over, I hope that there was a [..?.. *question] ..., there is one, a lot of different views, including the interpretation of events that occurred, that are very different. I tried, I didn’t have means because the judge is not allowed to speak much, and not much freely. I had read many times, I also received messages that were not exactly pleasant. Then also I read a lot of things that were totally unfounded and I hope I made a contribution. That means, you can have different opinions. I [think]… Sure, you can have different opinions, I, as the magistrate who works as a prosecutor; it was me in the investigation at the first instance trial and now as an assistant on appeal. You can have different opinions, I respect opinions but I expect that you do not put into question the good faith and intellectual honesty of the investigators, because there are no [*prejudices? reasons?] towards those young people who were totally unknown. We did what we deemed [was right] doing, what we found, which one may not subscribe to. I respect all opinions, but the ones who were responsible for conducting the investigation and supporting what is called the accusation, that anyway, let’s repeat it, is not an accusation but an organ of justice, [those ones] are us.
You are most welcome!!
Yes: The transcript is extremely long, it goes on for many, many pages, - I see now, 36 pages! - and Mignini answers in very long detailed paragraphs.....I am still in the midst of reading it right now....
You especially will be interested in comparing what he actually said... to what was presented on the show. Very telling IMO.
Of course CNN, being sympathetic to Knox and Sollecito, had reason to convey the interview as they deemed fit to their purposes.
From what I am reading, I would say Mignini is sincere (does not mean that I think his deductions wound up being correct) and from what I am able to grasp of his thinking, his motives, and his logic, it seems that he was likely under pressure to solve the crime, as it involved a foreign University student in Perugia. He seemed to be taken immediately with the idea of "a simulation". From there, his reasoning followed , to what he viewed as "suspect" behavior on the part of Knox and Sollecito, and , by way of this declension , began to involve them within his own line of reasoning. PL and RG were viewed as secondary. He was obviously a seasoned investigator, but that does preclude errors in judgement. I have some sympathy for him, but for Knox and Sollecito as well, because later things came to light which dissolved much of Mignini's logic. I have no desire to "bash" him, and can understand some of his conclusions. However there has been illumination of some of his "mis-steps" - even within his stance of sincerity - so that has to be taken into account as well. He has that classical air about him and so that tugs a bit at my heart, yet justice must be objective all around. I don't hate him; parts of his mind are wonderful. I just think things did not add up in the long run.
From what I am reading, I would say Mignini is sincere (does not mean that I think his deductions wound up being correct) and from what I am able to grasp of his thinking, his motives, and his logic, it seems that he was likely under pressure to solve the crime, as it involved a foreign University student in Perugia. He seemed to be taken immediately with the idea of "a simulation". From there, his reasoning followed , to what he viewed as "suspect" behavior on the part of Knox and Sollecito, and , by way of this declension , began to involve them within his own line of reasoning. PL and RG were viewed as secondary. He was obviously a seasoned investigator, but that does preclude errors in judgement. I have some sympathy for him, but for Knox and Sollecito as well, because later things came to light which dissolved much of Mignini's logic. I have no desire to "bash" him, and can understand some of his conclusions. However there has been illumination of some of his "mis-steps" - even within his stance of sincerity - so that has to be taken into account as well. He has that classical air about him and so that tugs a bit at my heart, yet justice must be objective all around. I don't hate him; parts of his mind are wonderful. I just think things did not add up in the long run.
I don't doubt his sincerity here: But that does not mean I have not become convinced that something went awry early on:
I am ... and those who know me know it, one who, when faced with a rational assessment, I often happened to concede that the person who has proven it to me was right. But I must be convinced. If I am not convinced, I am not convinced and I have my position. My position [is one] that I draw from the analysis of the elements, never by a preconceived or conspiracy-oriented assessment, anyway from the facts, from facts alone absolutely.
I am ... and those who know me know it, one who, when faced with a rational assessment, I often happened to concede that the person who has proven it to me was right. But I must be convinced. If I am not convinced, I am not convinced and I have my position. My position [is one] that I draw from the analysis of the elements, never by a preconceived or conspiracy-oriented assessment, anyway from the facts, from facts alone absolutely.
Just 2 last snippets that I found interesting:
09’10’’ CNN: was [Amanda Knox] scared?
09’11’’ Mignini: Well, I recall this feeling that I had in that moment which, [as] I am explaining to you, in the spirit in which I am doing this interview, to explain to you the acceptance [adozione] of our requests [provvedimenti], what was, why the trial went in a certain way. [Translator’s note: The Italian in the CNN transcript is nearly incomprehensible. We have provided the foregoing on a best effort basis.]
09’36’’ She was, she seemed to me like she was uplifted, freed of a weight, and terrified of Lumumba. That’s an impression that has stayed with me, yet I don’t understand. I remember that there was a policeman who was called, from the SCO [Servizio Centrale Operativo] in Rome, who made an impression on me because he was very fatherly. She was crying as though freed of a great weight, and he was trying to console her. I remember there was also a policewoman who, well, she...[missing word?] and I’m sure that.. [missing word?] .. well, all that picture how it was described later... at that moment it wasn’t like that. Right then, there was a situation in which I was trying to console her, to encourage her, because actually we believed that she had told the truth.
22'45'' CNN: But at the same time, can you sleep at night thinking you did the right thing?
22'53'' Mignini: I have a clear conscience, yes. You, I remember you were present when I made the request for conviction, the sentencing request, I have ... I explained it, it happened to me because I was the most senior judge, that was not the colleague, my colleague had carried out her work, her scope: the matter relating to genetic testing, cells phones, computer investigation. I had to do the investigative part, let’s say that by the event, the part dealing with the evidence collection. And then at the end I had to make the final request, I tell you, I have four daughters, so I know what it means, I am… I have a clear conscience because I asked, and I did, what I deemed [it had to] be done. I asked what I deemed and this is my assessment, I am ... who knows me knows that there is a way to persuade me: to convince me rationally. . .
09’10’’ CNN: was [Amanda Knox] scared?
09’11’’ Mignini: Well, I recall this feeling that I had in that moment which, [as] I am explaining to you, in the spirit in which I am doing this interview, to explain to you the acceptance [adozione] of our requests [provvedimenti], what was, why the trial went in a certain way. [Translator’s note: The Italian in the CNN transcript is nearly incomprehensible. We have provided the foregoing on a best effort basis.]
09’36’’ She was, she seemed to me like she was uplifted, freed of a weight, and terrified of Lumumba. That’s an impression that has stayed with me, yet I don’t understand. I remember that there was a policeman who was called, from the SCO [Servizio Centrale Operativo] in Rome, who made an impression on me because he was very fatherly. She was crying as though freed of a great weight, and he was trying to console her. I remember there was also a policewoman who, well, she...[missing word?] and I’m sure that.. [missing word?] .. well, all that picture how it was described later... at that moment it wasn’t like that. Right then, there was a situation in which I was trying to console her, to encourage her, because actually we believed that she had told the truth.
22'45'' CNN: But at the same time, can you sleep at night thinking you did the right thing?
22'53'' Mignini: I have a clear conscience, yes. You, I remember you were present when I made the request for conviction, the sentencing request, I have ... I explained it, it happened to me because I was the most senior judge, that was not the colleague, my colleague had carried out her work, her scope: the matter relating to genetic testing, cells phones, computer investigation. I had to do the investigative part, let’s say that by the event, the part dealing with the evidence collection. And then at the end I had to make the final request, I tell you, I have four daughters, so I know what it means, I am… I have a clear conscience because I asked, and I did, what I deemed [it had to] be done. I asked what I deemed and this is my assessment, I am ... who knows me knows that there is a way to persuade me: to convince me rationally. . .
Sorry---this part confused me? Was it "mixed blood" or "mixed DNA" found in the bathroom? Mignini seems to maintain it was mixed blood? :waitasec::waitasec:
5'48'' Help me to understand how is it possible that there was none found (DNA) in the room?
5'57'' Mignini: How is it possible? . . . There was genetic material of Sollecito there, of Rudy, and of the victim. So it is not true that there was no genetic material in the room, there was genetic material belonging to Sollecito, for example. And then if the knife is the murder weapon, as we found in the investigation process, the knife was on the scene of crime.
7'04''And then, anyway at one meter [distant] from the scene of the crime, in the corridor and in the small bathroom, there was: the mixed blood of Amanda... how is that possible? And so now I put the question to you, I return the question: how is it possible that there is mixed blood of Amanda, that mixed blood of Amanda and the victim was the small bathroom, which is very near, next to the murder room? That in the bathroom there is a footprint on the little mat dirty with blood, which is attributed to Sollecito? That in the corridor in front of the door of the crime room there are bloodied footprints attributed to Sollecito and Amanda? How is it possible to find these elements if they were not there? [That is a] question. I would like an answer from you but I’ll tell you.
Only a question – but I would like an answer to that – I ask you this:
08’52” Mignini: but that blood…., Amanda says that she did not see it on the night of the first; she saw it in the morning [of the 2nd] when she says she went into the room. How is it possible, if they stayed the night in Sollecito’s house, they spent the night in Sollecito’s house, that there can be mixed blood victim/Amanda in the little bathroom?
And I guess it runs counter to this:
Mixed DNA, Not Mixed Blood
Investigators found the mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda in a total of six samples among dozens that were taken. Three of these samples were from the bathroom that was shared by Amanda and Meredith. The other two housemates used a different bathroom. Mixed DNA was also found on swabs taken from Amanda's room and a latent shoe print in the hallway. A swab from Filomena's room revealed Meredith's DNA with what appears to be a very weak profile for Amanda.
All of the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom were visible bloodstains. Most likely they were composed of Meredith's blood mixed with an organic residue containing Amanda's DNA. No test was performed to determine if any of these samples contained the blood of both Meredith and Amanda, and there is no evidence that any of them did.
The other three mixed DNA samples were taken from latent stains revealed with luminol. No test was performed to confirm the presence of blood in any of these samples.
The prosecutor has tried to insinuate that these findings are incriminating. The most plausible explanation is that the mixed DNA is simply a result of cohabitation. As an example for the sake of comparison, investigators used luminol in Raffaele's apartment and found a latent stain with the mixed DNA of him and Amanda. Here is an example that you can relate to in your own home. If you cut your finger and your blood lands on a sink in a bathroom shared by other person in your house, you will get the exact same result. Your DNA will be mixed with the DNA from the other person that also used the bathroom. All it means is that two people have been sharing the same space.http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/p/mixed-dna-not-mixed-blood.html
5'48'' Help me to understand how is it possible that there was none found (DNA) in the room?
5'57'' Mignini: How is it possible? . . . There was genetic material of Sollecito there, of Rudy, and of the victim. So it is not true that there was no genetic material in the room, there was genetic material belonging to Sollecito, for example. And then if the knife is the murder weapon, as we found in the investigation process, the knife was on the scene of crime.
7'04''And then, anyway at one meter [distant] from the scene of the crime, in the corridor and in the small bathroom, there was: the mixed blood of Amanda... how is that possible? And so now I put the question to you, I return the question: how is it possible that there is mixed blood of Amanda, that mixed blood of Amanda and the victim was the small bathroom, which is very near, next to the murder room? That in the bathroom there is a footprint on the little mat dirty with blood, which is attributed to Sollecito? That in the corridor in front of the door of the crime room there are bloodied footprints attributed to Sollecito and Amanda? How is it possible to find these elements if they were not there? [That is a] question. I would like an answer from you but I’ll tell you.
Only a question – but I would like an answer to that – I ask you this:
08’52” Mignini: but that blood…., Amanda says that she did not see it on the night of the first; she saw it in the morning [of the 2nd] when she says she went into the room. How is it possible, if they stayed the night in Sollecito’s house, they spent the night in Sollecito’s house, that there can be mixed blood victim/Amanda in the little bathroom?
And I guess it runs counter to this:
Mixed DNA, Not Mixed Blood
Investigators found the mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda in a total of six samples among dozens that were taken. Three of these samples were from the bathroom that was shared by Amanda and Meredith. The other two housemates used a different bathroom. Mixed DNA was also found on swabs taken from Amanda's room and a latent shoe print in the hallway. A swab from Filomena's room revealed Meredith's DNA with what appears to be a very weak profile for Amanda.
All of the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom were visible bloodstains. Most likely they were composed of Meredith's blood mixed with an organic residue containing Amanda's DNA. No test was performed to determine if any of these samples contained the blood of both Meredith and Amanda, and there is no evidence that any of them did.
The other three mixed DNA samples were taken from latent stains revealed with luminol. No test was performed to confirm the presence of blood in any of these samples.
The prosecutor has tried to insinuate that these findings are incriminating. The most plausible explanation is that the mixed DNA is simply a result of cohabitation. As an example for the sake of comparison, investigators used luminol in Raffaele's apartment and found a latent stain with the mixed DNA of him and Amanda. Here is an example that you can relate to in your own home. If you cut your finger and your blood lands on a sink in a bathroom shared by other person in your house, you will get the exact same result. Your DNA will be mixed with the DNA from the other person that also used the bathroom. All it means is that two people have been sharing the same space.http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/p/mixed-dna-not-mixed-blood.html
So my question RE the above: How can a seasoned investigator be wrong about something so clear cut? If we believe his objectivity, and he certainly conveyed sincerity within the 36 pp., then what is with his insistence on mixed blood? DNA obviously could have been from Knox's prior usage of the bathroom to brush her teeth, etc.??:waitasec:................. :anguish:
This is what I find confusing about those claiming reading the full interview supposedly makes Mignini look better. I find it ironic that people on here have called Amanda's answers to questions vague and evasive, yet Mignini's answers to a lot of the questions are the defjnition of those things. The question was how did Amanda not leave any evidence in the room where the murder took place and Mignini's response is that there is mixed blood in the bathroom?! False and it doesn't answer the question!
Also, CNN didn't have to release the full interview. Those that think the interview was cut a certain way to hide information need to consider that CNN has made full disclosure of the interview.
Well, dgfred, looking at this all objectively: I do have a certain admiration of Mignini; he is a "type" that I can understand, and which is often misunderstood and under-represented. (He sort of reminds me of my Italian father who died tragically when I was a teen.:waitasec
I think he comes off utterly sincerely in the CNN transcript, and it is touching that he says he felt badly when Knox and Sollecito were convicted, but that he had to do his duty. I have no reason to doubt that he felt and thought as he says he did. He seems intelligent and sincere and professional. However: Some things which are clear in his OWN mind are not clear in general. And there is a gaping contradiction between his view and parts of reality. This really is in the hands of fate now...I agree Mignini buries certain questions in silence. I also agree it is absurd to believe CNN tried to cover Mignini's real character and answers, only to release the full 36 PP transcript.(although let's face it, they knew the viewers would vastly outnumber the transcript-readers).
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,923
- Reaction score
- 126,898
Not sure what you mean. The 9:10 time was introduced during testimony and accepted by the jury as the correct time that the movie ended without someone turning it off.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,923
- Reaction score
- 126,898
The Daily Mail is a bit like a rag magazine. The motivation report quotes the testimony from the people at dinner and places the time of dinner at roughly one hour before they left at 8:45. I would be more inclined to accept the judge's summary of the jury decision over a news source like the Daily Mail.
That places the end of dinner at 7:45, not 6 PM.
But IS it mixed DNA or mixed blood as Mignini says? It makes a huge difference: The former is not convincing, the latter is.....
- Status
Similar threads
