Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[Tizzle]

>>snipped<<

From what I can gather, Mignini got himself in trouble over his handling of the "Monster of Florence" case. He was accused of inappropriately promoting publicity for himself and miss-using an anti-slander law that I do not understand because it doesn't seem to exist in America. I am not aware that he was accused of falsifying evidence or suborning perjury.

The True Monster of Florence
By Douglas Preston
Published: April 10, 2009

Back in 2000, I moved to Italy with my family to write a murder mystery set in Florence. We rented a 14th century villa on a hill just outside the city, looking out over a lovely olive grove.

I soon discovered the grove had been the site of one of the most horrifying double-murders in modern Italian history, committed by a serial killer known as the Monster of Florence. The Monster killed young couples making love in the Tuscan hills, mutilating the female victims and taking away their sex organs. He was never caught.

In the olive grove outside our house, however, the Monster made a mistake. He killed a gay couple making love, in which one of the partners was young and slender with long blond hair. When he discovered his error he was furious, trashing the site and ripping up a gay magazine he’d found.

I never wrote the novel. Instead, I teamed up with Mario Spezi, the local newspaper reporter who had covered the Monster’s killings, and together we wrote a book about it, called “The Monster of Florence.”

The book was published last June. Movie rights to the story were picked up by United Artists, with Christopher McQuarrie, Tom Cruise and Jinks/Cohen producing.

Our investigation of the Monster case went against the official police theory of the killings. The investigators did not like our conclusions or the fact that we publicly disagreed with them. They summoned me to an interrogation, accused me of perjury, obstruction of justice, and being an accessory to murder, and suggested I leave the country. (I left the next day.)

They arrested Mario Spezi and accused him -- this is not a joke -- of being the Monster of Florence himself. He was thrown into an isolation cell in Capanne Prison outside Perugia.

The powerful state prosecutor behind all this was a man named Giuliano Mignini, Public Minister of Perugia, who headed a branch of the Monster investigation.

Spezi’s arrest generated an international uproar, led by the Committee to Protect Journalists and other freedom of press organizations. He was released after 23 brutal days in prison; Mignini was then indicted for abuse of office. And yet, in Italy, an indicted prosecutor is not automatically removed from office. Mignini remained (and remains) in power.
http://www.thewrap.com/blog-entry/2354

Amanda Knox May be Joined in Jail by Giuliano Mignini, the Prosecutor That Put Her There

In Mignini's "abuse of office" case, Florence prosecutors have alleged that Mignini used his office to harass journalists who criticized his investigation of the Florence murders. They allege he illegal wiretapped journalists and opened bogus investigations against them.

Asked about the charges by CBS News producer Doug Longhini, Mignini brushed them off saying that they were politically motivated.

The case against Mignini was concluded Dec. 4. A verdict is expected sometime in January of 2010. The prosecutors have asked for 10 months in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/07/crimesider/entry5928444.shtml

'Foxy Knoxy' prosecutor faces 10-month jail sentence over abuse of power charges

A prosecutor in the trial of Amanda Knox was today facing a ten-month jail sentence after a court heard he should be convicted of abuse of power.

Giuliano Mignini is also accused of obstruction of justice and illegally wiretapping journalists but has been allowed to carry on as lead prosecutor in Knox's sensational court case.

~~~~~~~~~~~

His own trial began a year ago and centres on his involvement in the so called Monster of Florence serial killings which left 14 people dead between 1974 and 1985, all courting couples.

Mignini was investigating the mystery death of chemist Francesco Narducci found downed in a lake near Perugia in 1985 and who is said to have ordered the serial killings.

Along with the police chief investigating the serial killings Michele Giuttari, Mignini is said to have planted bugging devices in journalists cars and also used his power to question reporters at length for no reason and without charge.

At the trial in Florence prosecutor Luca Turco called for his judicial colleague Mignini to be jailed for ten months while he asked for Giuttari to be given two and half years.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ntence-abuse-power-charges.html#ixzz0d5cfH1sv

 

[dgfred]

I understand the problems with Mignini that some have, but imo he will NOT be in any trouble (jail) regarding this matter.

 

[LinasK]

I understand the problems with Mignini that some have, but imo he will NOT be in any trouble (jail) regarding this matter.

I agree, Mignini's corruption has no bearing on Amanda or Raf's Guilt. The two factors are mutually independent. As I stated earlier, he can be totally corrupt, and they are still guilty. There is no wrongful conviction here.

 

[miley]

Kaly99.
This is exactly what I was talking about. You are discounting evidence on the assumption that the prosecutor is possibly/probably dishonest, therefore nothing any prosecution witness testifies to can really be believed.

I'm not arguing against this assumption nor am I arguing against the assumption that the crime was committed by Space Aliens. These are issues that I simply have no reason to believe are a factor, but if they do turn out to be a factor, I have no relevant knowledge to contribute to any discussion.

Someone brought up O.J. The defense made the argument that the lead detective was "racist"; therefore none of the evidence that was collected could be trusted. An effective tactic, to be sure, but I don't think justice was served. It rendered discussion of the DNA evidence futile.

From what I can gather, Mignini got himself in trouble over his handling of the "Monster of Florence" case. He was accused of inappropriately promoting publicity for himself and miss-using an anti-slander law that I do not understand because it doesn't seem to exist in America. I am not aware that he was accused of falsifying evidence or suborning perjury.

the "prosecution" has many facets, kaly doesn't directly single anyone out, (you do) plus she is offering a theory, isn't that what you asked for?...

you said,
"Those of us who believe Amanda and Raffaele were involved have been presenting the case that the evidence demonstrates that they engaged in a staging/clean-up that attempted to remove the evidence of their presence while leaving evidence of Rudy's presence there. The "pro Amanda" group seems to be trying undermine this argument without really offering an explaination of what really happened." ​

I agree with Sleuthygal. It's hard for me to take what the prosecution says at face value when it doesn't make sense.

anyway, the real issue is the lamp - the prosecution brings it up at trial...is it relevant?

I'm more interested in what your theory is... is it your opinion, the lamp is part of the clean-up?

I'd still like to hear your thoughts about the staging and what happened.

 

[miley]

Probably why the lamp wasn't used against AK at trial.
Only mentioned as a question to AK... she said she didn't notice it in there or missing. So a half or even a full decent attorney really didn't have to do anything.

but it was used against her at trial (against RS too) in the video.

 

[kemo]

Do we know that the lamp was never tested for prints or DNA? Is it possible that the police moved the lamp there? We have defense lawyers to deal with these issues. If there was any chance that the police put it there, the defense would be all over it during the cross examination of all the officers that were there when the door was opened. The same thing would apply when the forensic team testified. If they failed to check the lamp (or anything else) for DNA and prints, the defense could make a major deal about major forensic evidence that could have vindicated their clients being missed due to police negligence.

Now, the deal is that the lamp with the plug coming from the hall is pretty suggestive that someone got the lamp from Amanda's room to help with the staging/clean-up. This works against the "lone wolf" theory and you sort of notice that, whoever got the lamp, got it from Amanda's room. Its existence hurts Amanda and Raffaele. If Meredith "borrowed" it, you would expect her to plug it in her room. Meredith's prints/DNA would tend to show it was borrowed. Rudy's or some unknown donor' prints/DNA would help Amanda and Raffaele's defense tremendously. Amanda (and Raffaele's prints/DNA wouldn't mean much either way as they would be expected to be on the lamp however it got there. If the lamp were wiped clean, it would tend to hurt Amanda and Raffaele because it would be consistent with the thorough but selective clean-up.

It is my understanding that the prosecution was required to disclose all of the forensic evidence to the defense. If the lamp was tested, the defense knew what was found. If the prosecution doesn't bring it up, the defense can. The problem for the defense is that they do not want to remind the jury of the lamp, and its potential damage to their case, unless they are sure to gain some advantage. An example of this is the possibility that the police put it there. If they start badgering the officers over "are you sure you didn't bring that lamp into the room" they might raise some real doubt but if the officer is steadfast, it will only reinforce the possibility of the lamp as a tool of staging.

While I am operating on the assumption that the prosecution is honest, I am operating on the certainty that the defense is first rate and are not going to miss anything this basic.

 

[jjenny]

jjenny? Are you kidding? Was someone else posting for you the other day or something?? YOU are the one that posted something about the lamp to begin with. MANY have asked for links to information about the lamp or for your theory. You ignored us, but found time to come back to tell posters that their theories are absurd, demanding links from them! LOL! THAT is absurd, NOT Kaly's post/theory. Where are the links to information about the lamp, the discussion YOU started the other day???? You have none and that is why you're not willing to "prove the negative" whatever that means. Way to go.

I didn't come up with some story about the lamp and then stated "this is huge" as if my story (not based on any available information) was actually the fact. What exactly do you think I need to provide to you regarding my post about the lamp? I've made absolutely no claims about it.
In fact I didn't even make a statement about the lamp, it was a question. There was no theory of any kind put forward in my post.

 

[Tizzle]

I didn't come up with some story about the lamp and then stated "this is huge" as if my story (not based on any available information) was actually the fact. What exactly do you think I need to provide to you regarding my post about the lamp? I've made absolutely no claims about it.In fact I didn't even make a statement about the lamp, it was a question. There was no theory of any kind put forward in my post.

BBM
The same thing that others have been asking for:

Links to sources that provide definitive information regarding the lamp. Links to information that verify it's presence in the room and if there was Amanda's DNA on it. You suggested it, now back it up. If you can't, why even bring it up?

If the lamp wasn't used as evidence against Amanda (other than Mignini's sneaking it in the animated video reconstruction and Amanda being asked about it briefly), then I don't really see the point in discussing it. Same with any other piece of flimsy evidence/gossip/rumor. If the lamp was of any kind of importance to the case that got Amanda & Raf wrongly convicted, more information would be available about it. We WOULD know about every movement that lamp made and every piece of DNA it contained. Mignini would make sure of it.

It's not true that you didn't make a statement about the lamp in the post we're discussing, it was more than just a question as you suggest:

Her lamp was in there. Wouldn't you think her DNA was on her lamp?

BBM
The 'theory that you put forward in your post' is that Amanda's DNA would be on her lamp that was allegedly in Meredith's room. That is a theory. Do you have any more information about the lamp and it's presence in MK's room to offer? Because the snarkiness to myself and other posters for coming up with theories to the discussion YOU started is completely unwarranted. So figure out what point you're trying to make, collect some links to back it up and get back to us, k? TIA

 

[jjenny]

And? If the lamp was from Amanda's room, is it unreasonable to ask if her DNA might be on that lamp? By the way I am not stating that as a fact, I am asking a question as to whether Amanda's DNA would be on her lamp. Or are you disputing that the lamp was in MK's room? Is that what you need the link for?
The lamp was used during a re-enactment by the prosecution. I don't see how prosecution could have used it during re-enactment if it wasn't in fact in MK's room. One would think if the lamp was not there, the defense would object most vigorously to the prosecution using it.

"The re-enactment also showed the staging of the crime scene, with Knox and Sollecito's avatars returning to the scene, taking off their shoes, bringing a lamp from Knox's room into Kercher's room, undressing Kercher to make it look like she had been raped, putting a blanket over the body and cleaning up some of the apartment with a mop."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412538_knox21.html

 

[Tizzle]

I don't consider the highly controversial animated video re-enactment as actual evidence, is the problem, jjenny. It was only introduced during closing arguments and the defense DID object to it, but not just the lamp being in the video, they objected to the prosecution showing the video at all. As the defense should have, it shouldn't have been used, at least not so late in the trial. I see how the prosecution could have used it in the video even if the lamp's presence wasn't introduced as evidence against the pair because that is how Mignini works. He is a liar, uses the power of suggestion grossly to his advantage and fantasizes about being more important than he is. It's, IMO, apparently some sick obsession he has. His theatrics and drama are proof, to me. All smoke and mirrors. I can see it's worked on some. Oh well. I guess this is what humankind is headed for; being led by bad gossip and wild rumors spread by a prosecutor with weird sexual obsessions.

So, do you have any other links about the lamp besides this last ditch effort by Mignini to 'seal the deal'? And since you're so certain it was in there, why do you suppose we haven't heard about any DNA that might have been on it? What was the purpose of bringing up the lamp and any DNA in your original post that started this whole discussion? Where were you going with it?

So...And?

 

[Kaly99]

Kaly99.
This is exactly what I was talking about. You are discounting evidence on the assumption that the prosecutor is possibly/probably dishonest, therefore nothing any prosecution witness testifies to can really be believed.

I'm not arguing against this assumption nor am I arguing against the assumption that the crime was committed by Space Aliens. These are issues that I simply have no reason to believe are a factor, but if they do turn out to be a factor, I have no relevant knowledge to contribute to any discussion.

Someone brought up O.J. The defense made the argument that the lead detective was "racist"; therefore none of the evidence that was collected could be trusted. An effective tactic, to be sure, but I don't think justice was served. It rendered discussion of the DNA evidence futile.

From what I can gather, Mignini got himself in trouble over his handling of the "Monster of Florence" case. He was accused of inappropriately promoting publicity for himself and miss-using an anti-slander law that I do not understand because it doesn't seem to exist in America. I am not aware that he was accused of falsifying evidence or suborning perjury.

No, I'm NOT discounting evidence on the grounds that the prosecutor was corrupt. You're completely misunderstanding my point. You seem to have read my post with the preconceived idea that people are discounting evidence based on the corruption of the prosecutor, and presumed that's what I'm doing here. I'm not.

I'm interested in establishing exactly when the lamp was left in MK's room, and whether the cable leading under her door to the power socket in the corridor was there before the door was broken down. If it was, then fine; it just seems odd that none of the witnesses, not AK and RS, not Filomena and her friends, nor the police mentioned it. Maybe none of them noticed it, or maybe it just didn't seem significant - I don't know. I'm just very curious to find out, especially in light of the fact the prosecution barely referred to the lamp at all in the trial. Do I think it's possible the prosecution discovered the lamp had nothing to do with the crime, dropped nearly all references to it from their case, but used it in a couple of instances when it suited them? Well yes, I do. Sorry. Technically that's not exactly 'corruption' (corruption would be if they HAD used it as a main part of the case), but it's not particularly ethical.

You seem to have a problem with anyone doubting the complete honesty and integrity of the prosecution, yet the very least we know happened here is that they used a piece of evidence never discussed in court against the defendants, without giving the defence any opportunity to challenge it. At worst, they realized that bit of evidence had nothing to do with the crime - and that it may even have been a source of contamination - but used it sneakily anyway. Whichever way you lean on that one, it doesn't exactly say anything positive about their ethical approach to the case.

 

[Kaly99]

I'll give it a go.
The prosecution probably could not make it a BIG part of the case because:
The lamp was AK's, so her DNA would be all over it regardless of its use that night. MK could have borrowed the lamp to see a little better studying. If it didn't have RG's or RS's dna on it the relevance would be negligible.
***In my personal opinion the lamp was used by AK in the clean up (maybe to see bloodprints or to find an earing or something) and was locked in the room on accident. I do believe AK saw it there during her 'shower', but couldn't do anything about it at that time. I also believe if she did not have anything to do with the murder... she would have mentioned it missing from her room if she didn't have anything to do with it being in MK's room in the first place.
IF it only had AK's and maybe even MK's dna on it... imo I don't see how it could be such a 'huge' deal for either side... unless someone tells what it was used for.

Thanks for at least addressing the points I made, djfred!

I agree that AK's DNA on her lamp wouldn't be of any special significance in terms of implicating her. What surprises me is that the prosecution apparently agreed, even, it seems, to the point of not testing it. After all, they considered AK's DNA in the bathroom to be evidence, when you would equally expect her DNA to be found there. So why wasn't the fact her lamp was found in the murder room of more concern? Especially when they didn't (and still don't) have any other forensic evidence linking her directly to the bedroom. It's just very odd that we know nothing about the lamp - no results from tests that were carried out on it, no theory as to how it got there presented in court (or not in such a way that the defence could challenge it, anyway). Nothing. It's very weird, is what it is. Why do we know so little about it?

Here's a question for you, though: why wouldn't AK mention the lamp being missing from her room, whether she had anything to do with the murder or not? If they were so desperate to get it back they tried to break the door down, they obviously knew it could be traced to her. Why not just go to Plan B, and tell the police that the only thing she'd noticed missing from her room was her reading lamp - seems a bit weird, but hey, maybe Meredith borrowed it? She could even have made a show of recognizing the cable plugged in outside. I see no reason for her to try and hide it, and very strong reasons why she'd mention it as just another of the 'odd' things she noticed in the cottage. Why not just tell them about it?

 

[Isabella]

I don't consider the highly controversial animated video re-enactment as actual evidence, is the problem, jjenny. It was only introduced during closing arguments and the defense DID object to it, but not just the lamp being in the video, they objected to the prosecution showing the video at all. As the defense should have, it shouldn't have been used, at least not so late in the trial. I see how the prosecution could have used it in the video even if the lamp's presence wasn't introduced as evidence against the pair because that is how Mignini works. He is a liar, uses the power of suggestion grossly to his advantage and fantasizes about being more important than he is. It's, IMO, apparently some sick obsession he has. His theatrics and drama are proof, to me. All smoke and mirrors. I can see it's worked on some. Oh well. I guess this is what humankind is headed for; being led by bad gossip and wild rumors spread by a prosecutor with weird sexual obsessions.

So, do you have any other links about the lamp besides this last ditch effort by Mignini to 'seal the deal'? And since you're so certain it was in there, why do you suppose we haven't heard about any DNA that might have been on it? What was the purpose of bringing up the lamp and any DNA in your original post that started this whole discussion? Where were you going with it?

So...And?

Whatever Migini is..unlike Amanda Knox he has never been convicted of a brutal murderof a "friend".

 

[Kaly99]

Do we know that the lamp was never tested for prints or DNA? Is it possible that the police moved the lamp there? We have defense lawyers to deal with these issues. If there was any chance that the police put it there, the defense would be all over it during the cross examination of all the officers that were there when the door was opened. The same thing would apply when the forensic team testified. If they failed to check the lamp (or anything else) for DNA and prints, the defense could make a major deal about major forensic evidence that could have vindicated their clients being missed due to police negligence.

Now, the deal is that the lamp with the plug coming from the hall is pretty suggestive that someone got the lamp from Amanda's room to help with the staging/clean-up. This works against the "lone wolf" theory and you sort of notice that, whoever got the lamp, got it from Amanda's room. Its existence hurts Amanda and Raffaele. If Meredith "borrowed" it, you would expect her to plug it in her room. Meredith's prints/DNA would tend to show it was borrowed. Rudy's or some unknown donor' prints/DNA would help Amanda and Raffaele's defense tremendously. Amanda (and Raffaele's prints/DNA wouldn't mean much either way as they would be expected to be on the lamp however it got there. If the lamp were wiped clean, it would tend to hurt Amanda and Raffaele because it would be consistent with the thorough but selective clean-up.

It is my understanding that the prosecution was required to disclose all of the forensic evidence to the defense. If the lamp was tested, the defense knew what was found. If the prosecution doesn't bring it up, the defense can. The problem for the defense is that they do not want to remind the jury of the lamp, and its potential damage to their case, unless they are sure to gain some advantage. An example of this is the possibility that the police put it there. If they start badgering the officers over "are you sure you didn't bring that lamp into the room" they might raise some real doubt but if the officer is steadfast, it will only reinforce the possibility of the lamp as a tool of staging.

While I am operating on the assumption that the prosecution is honest, I am operating on the certainty that the defense is first rate and are not going to miss anything this basic.

The defence had no reason to discuss the lamp at all, since the prosecution didn't bring it up as a main part of their evidence. And even if they did happen to consider the possibility that the lamp was left there accidentally by the police at a later point (and I think it's entirely possible it just didn't occur to them), they would hardly be likely to accuse the police of incompetence without proof. However, if the photo shows the lamp plugged in, yet none of the witnesses mentioned it, that would be some kind of proof, and that's why I'm keen to establish the facts there.

You're completely wrong about the prosecution being required to disclose the results of all their tests. They may have been legally required to give them the results of tests they planned to bring up in court, but the lamp wasn't discussed in court. And they still didn't manage to provide all the information even about evidence that was discussed. For example, when Stefanoni was questioned about the amount of DNA found on the bra clasp, she mentioned a number. The defence looked through their paperwork and realized there was no mention of this figure, so they had to ask the judge that Stefanoni be required to give them all missing information relating to it (source).

That was information about a crucial piece of evidence that hadn't been disclosed by the prosecution. Would they have voluntarily released information relating to tests that weren't even discussed in court? I very much doubt it.

 

[Kaly99]

This is actually pretty absurd. Since you've come up with a story, then maybe you should provide links supporting it, rather than me trying to prove the negative. Thank you very much.

What links would you like me to provide, jjenny? Obviously, I can't point you to links for the absent DNA tests or the absent testimony about the lamp cable from witnesses. You'll just have to take my word for it that, as yet, I haven't read anything about either of those. If you have, let me know.

The lamp cable leading out the door can be seen in the main crime scene photo. You've obviously read about the cartoon presented by the prosecution, and Miley quoted the bit about the lamp from AK's trial testimony earlier. What other links did you want?

 

[Isabella]

What links would you like me to provide, jjenny? Obviously, I can't point you to links for the absent DNA tests or the absent testimony about the lamp cable from witnesses. You'll just have to take my word for it that, as yet, I haven't read anything about either of those. If you have, let me know.

The lamp cable leading out the door can be seen in the main crime scene photo. You've obviously read about the cartoon presented by the prosecution, and Miley quoted the bit about the lamp from AK's trial testimony earlier. What other links did you want?

It may just be me but i wouldnt describe a video of how a young girl was believed to be murdered a "cartoon".

Also regarding the testing of things...if the defence had a problem with any of it or how it was done..maybe they should have one there when it was being done. They was invited to do so but declined.

 

[miley]

I agree kaly... I think the police must have used the lamp so they could see meredith's room better... and really, if there was ever an opportunity to tie amanda directly to the crime scene, this was it -- so why didn't they? (and scream it from the rooftops?)

if the killer used the lamp to "clean up" and then "accidentally" locked the lamp in meredith's room, then why not just turn around and use their (newly stolen) key to get the lamp back out --

 

[miley]

It may just be me but i wouldnt describe a video of how a young girl was believed to be murdered a "cartoon".

Also regarding the testing of things...if the defence had a problem with any of it or how it was done..maybe they should have one there when it was being done. They was invited to do so but declined.

instead of cartoon, what about "world of warcraft like"

 

[miley]

more from In Session Message Boards Amanda Knox Testimony
I bolded Mignini's questions and "knoxcase" is the poster who did the translation, I italicized his comments - it's sort of confusing to read

I turned mine off, because I didn't want to get another message from Patrick,
because actually I didn't really want to go to work. For example, he
had told me that I didn't have to work, but if then a bunch of people showed
up, well honestly, he had told me I didn't have to go to work and I wanted
to stay with Raffaele.

Yesterday if I'm not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with
Raffaele.

Yes.

On page 40 (I don't know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation of December 17, you said, I'll read it, that: "I turned off my phone to save my battery." Do you remember that?

Well, if it's written there, it must be okay.

Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I'll read it.
"But why did you turn off your phone?" Interrogation of Dec 17. "To save
my battery." "Do you usually keep it on at night?" [Voices arguing, a bit
annoyed, they can't find it in the text?] Well, bottom of page 39, but these were the words. Knox's answer: "To save my battery." "Do you usually keep it on at night?" "If I have something to do the next morning." "But the
next morning was the day on which everyone skipped school." "But we were
supposed to go to Gubbio the next day with Raffaele." The next day was the
2nd?

Mhm.


You wanted to go to Gubbio on the 2nd or the 3rd?

No, on the 2nd we wanted to go to Gubbio.

So, you turned off your telephone so Patrick wouldn't be able to call you in
to work, or you turned it off to save your battery, not to use up your
battery. Now, you remember what, what battery you had? what kind of autonomy it had?

What kind of battery?

Yes.

I don't know what type of battery it was, but...

The autonomy of the battery? Do you remember?

I think it was about one or two days. It wasn't very long, but in the end,
well, for example, the next morning, I was going to go to Gubbio, but
I didn't have time to charge up the battery, so I thought, I don't want to
get any phone calls this evening, and if I want to have my phone with me
in Gubbio, I wanted it to be reasonably charged up. That's why I turned it off.

I see. Now -- are we hearing something from the "contestazione"?
[Voices arguing] In fact, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the
cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being...[interruption]
But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said...On Dec 17 she said it was
to save battery and also for this reason [different voices, can't
tell who is saying what, but I think this is Ghirga. Also they are
interrupting each other]. So, I thought I understood that she had two
reasons. We're not arguing about that. The "contestazione" isn't about that. It's about... Please, please, let's return to the cross-examination by the
pubblico ministero. The defense lawyers will have the final words. Everyone will hear what they have to say then.

The objection was because the request to introduce...[A bit more yelling.]
Enough now ["adesso basta"].

[I think this is Ghirga] My objection concerned the fact that the pubblico
ministero seemed to contest the fact that in the Dec 17 interrogation, she
also explained that she turned off her phone because she didn't want to be
called by Patrick, because she didn't want to be disturbed. This doesn't
correspond to the truth, because on page 40 of the minutes, she actually
says "So, I turned it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would
change his mind and call me in." [Interruption] "To save her battery!"
"All right, we heard the pubblico ministero...we heard him describe a reason,
two reasons, if there's a contradiction, there will be an analysis. It's
not only half a contradiction, or not a contradiction." [different voices]
Now let's leave this question...please, pubblico ministero. Go ahead. [I'm
using this expression to translate "prego".]​

another poster, Jester, sums it up:

Jester says:
It appears that the prosecutor is trying to misrepresent facts. On the pages he referenced, two reasons are given for Amanda turning off her phone, but he implied that she was lying in court when she said she turned off her phone to avoid calls from Patrick to go to work. He only quoted that she turned off her phone to save her battery, but she had provided both reasons during her interrogation.
Amanda Knox Testimony - In Session Message Boards
​

 

[Tizzle]

It may just be me but i wouldnt describe a video of how a young girl was believed to be murdered a "cartoon".

LOL! But you have no problem with the prosecution making the "cartoon" in the first place of how the young girl was believed to be murdered and then slipping it into the trial during closing arguments. One word: GRIMEY.

Justice was not served in Meredith's name when A&R were found guilty. She is not Resting In Peace. The memory of her has been muddied by this witch trial. That is the worst part of all of this. Meredith would NOT want these innocent people spending ANY of their lives in prison, for a crime they didn't commit, in her name. Her death was turned into a mockery by the wild theories put forth by the prosecution. The "cartoon" they invented is proof of that. So sad that more people don't realize this.

Also regarding the testing of things...if the defence had a problem with any of it or how it was done..maybe they should have one there when it was being done. They was invited to do so but declined.

I haven't read anything about the defense declining to be present during any of the prosecution's 'testing'. Further, I have read nothing about them even being invited by the prosecution. Could you provide a link to this information, please? I am unable to locate anything and would like to read more. TIA