Netflixhoax 2: Omitted - Any Accurate Representation Of Dr Mignini’s Fine Track Record
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. The Wider Context
Longtime Italy-berater Judy Bachrach is one of the first to view the Netflix movie Amanda Knox. Predictably, she raves about it.
At bottom here Dr Mignini explains the actual final judgment on Knox and Sollecito, and shoots huge holes in Bachrach’s claims.
Judy Bachrach resembles one of those wind-up parrots. She repeats about a dozen of the Knox-PR talking points like mantras again and again.
There are literally hundreds of evidence points on this and other sites that overwhelmingly point to Knox and Sollecito guilt. There is no other way to account for them all. That is why the 2009 trial was so decisive.
Try running those past Bahrach and she is quite certain to come up short of any other explanation. Even simply our two posts directly below this, providing a flavor of that, would leave her seriously stumped.
She published her first very simplistic take on the case in 2008, months before trial when much evidence was not public and the myth-making Knox and Sollecito PR was ramping up. Then another simplistic take every several years since. She has also repeatedly found her way onto TV and perhaps a dozen simplistic YouTubes are one result.
At Guede, she really rants. Clearly in her eyes the nasty black guy did it, and did it all alone even though not one court, ever, ruled that.
She makes it routine to mischaracterize Dr Mignini, who she seems to think really had it in for the girl (she always forgets Sollecito) because of something to do with sex. And in her mind all of Italy has been fooled.
Our main poster Machine posted an analysis of nine of Bachrach’ wild claims way back in April 2010. They are highly worth reading, here. Machine’s overall conclusion on Bachrach was this.
We have been analyzing Judy Bachrach’s many, many articles and TV commentaries about the case, and they all seem to point to the following conclusions.
- That she hasn’t ever read the Micheli report and doesn’t seem to have actually ever mentioned it.
- That she hasn’t had full access to the prosecution’s 10,000-plus pages file of evidence, and maybe she has had no access at all.
- That she didn’t attend the key court sessions in which highly incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence was presented.
- That she hasn’t absorbed the numerous factual newspaper and magazine reports about the key forensic and circumstantial evidence.
- That she seems to rely either a lot or totally on sources with vested interests who feed her wrong theories and false information.
- And that she comes across to us as the reporter most often showing on US media outlets the most complete ignorance of the case.
Quite a track record. We wonder if she is really very proud of it. She seems to sound so.
2. Judy Bachrach’s Latest Crackpot Claims
Judy Bachrach was fast to start beating the drum about the Netflix flick. Almost the first reporter there. You can read her article here. She clearly loves the Netflix report.
That it leaves out about 95% of the key facts seems to be over her head.
In the article, she quotes her recollection of an interview Dr Mignini gave her years ago. This was clearly a gotcha moment for her - suddenly it was crystal clear why Amanda Knox is being tried for the crimes. Sex! It seems over her head that officially there really were sex crimes; all three were charged with them.
It pays to understand four things.
(1) Not only did the Netflix flick get things wrong and leave myriad things out (how many, we shall soon know) but it appears to accept that innocence was proved and that Knox and Sollecito had zero role. That was not what the Supreme Court said. See Dr Mignini’s final damning paras below.
(2) Italian lawyers think the Fifth Chambers ruling may have been illegal as well as bent. The reasoning can be read here. That is headed to court soon.
(3) Judy Bachrach’s crackpot inventions are not backed up by even one document, transcript or report. She really does parrot the Knox PR and uses inventions to fill in any gaps.
(4) There is a mafia angle, of which Bachrach could be part. Humiliating the forces of justice is what they like to do. We cannot go public until this officially starts to come out. Sollecito first drew attention to it, and law enforcement are on top of it.
3. Dr Mignini Corrects The Record At Length
We offered Dr Mignini this opportunity. He kindly came through. It is made pretty obvious that Bachrach was maliciously putting words in his mouth. Dr Mignini spoke in Italian, and we translated, and he approved.
Dr Mignini speaks
I will share just some of my thoughts after reading the article in that magazine, which I would really prefer not to speak about. I mainly want to say that those statements which are put between quotation marks as attributed to me contained in that article? I never pronounced them.
I have never said – and anyone who knows me would understand (though this journalist Judy Bachrach doesn’t know me, doesn’t know me at all and I myself didn’t have the misfortune to know her) that I would never say, I’d never talk about, and I’d never mention, the morality or the immorality of a person as an argument within the explanation for a crime. Absolutely no way.
A crime is a violation of a law, an action that may be reprehensible or whatever you like, but it is an action regulated as provided by the penal code, subjected to penalty by the code, that needs to be ascertained, period. And that’s all. It needs to be ascertained following totally objective criteria. A crime is an objective action, a codified action. It has nothing to do with moral qualities, or allegations of moral qualities, or lack thereof, of an individuals.
The discussion in the article of Bachrach about those allegedly quoted statements about “morality” attributed to me, they are FALSE, I have simply never said them. And one cannot even say that they were a little changed, because I’ve never said anything even remotely like them. Those are statements of a kind that I would NEVER make.
Such is one statement reported in the article where I allegedly said “Amanda killed because motivated by a wish to be liked at any cost” – by the way, statements like those do not make any sense: the person who makes up such statements doesn’t realize she is saying things void of any meaning.
The Italian Penal Procedure code (art. 220) prohibits that any research into the personality of a suspect could be used in court as evidence, such as the finding of a propensity of a suspect to commit crimes or similar argumentations. A proper research into the personality of a suspect is permitted only when there is a need to establish mental capabilities. On the other hand, some features of a suspect personality might be considered during investigations but only to understand the context of a crime.
When I happened to point at some features apparent in the personality of the suspects, I actually cited observations made by criminal psychiatrist Dr. Mastronardi who had given his opinion on the case. Aspects of personalities traits, showing features such as manipulative behaviours or a passive and dependent attitude – to mention some findings involving the suspects – were rather noted, highlighted or detailed not by the prosecution, but by the judges on various instances of the investigation and pre-trial hearings (Investigation Judge C. Matteini, Re-Examination Judge M. Ricciarelli, and Preliminary Judge P. Micheli).
[Editors note. These are the judges who really guided the case. Go to this post and scroll down and click through to posts #13 to #16. That includes the findings of the Supreme Court, which backed up the findings of Dr Matteini and Dr Ricciarelli’s panel. It also includes Dr Mignini’s interrogation of Knox, in which she in effect froze up; this was done at her own request though her lawyers were none too thrilled - they feared she would bomb out, and she did.]
As for the “motive” on this case. It should be pointed out that in a case like the murder of Meredith Kercher – the murder of a young student girl who was uninvolved in dangerous circles and had no enemies – independently from the identity of the perpetrators, we are talking about a crime that cannot have have a “motive” with a rational or consistent logical structure, nor could it be ascribed to a particular conscious and organized intention.
We may talk about causes that could have contributed to leading to a situation that ended in committing the crime. Among the factors we know that unbalanced personalities, life or emotional disorganization of perpetrators, behavioral excesses, inabilities to handle relations, psychological fragilities, are elements that always contribute to this kind of crimes, and we had reasons to believe that drugs also played a role.
The task of the judiciaries is not really to set out the motives of the individuals from a subjective point of view. We know that unfortunately a record of cases exists, in which apparent “ordinary” looking young people – including students – have committed very violent murders, in contexts where no “motive” could be explained in a way that appears rational or serious from an objective point of view, since futile crimes - including group murders - may emerge from the building up of situations involving individuals not able to handle issues of adult life.
Thus, all statements within quotation marks as reported in the article by Bachrach are false, I’d say absolutely false: they are the product of a making-up or a spin (I reserve for myself any necessary action in the event there is also a defamatory report) or reported without their context or with their context changed (like falsely reporting the dates, such as when I mentioned the time when some Perugian citizens used to compliment me).
I was stunned by one statement by the end of the article, that says – in which I am reported to have said – that “if they were innocent, they should forget”. That is a statement which I said on request of one of the two interviewers, who asked “what would you say to those young persons in the event that they were actually innocent?”. So what could I say, what should I answer to a question framed and spun in such a way? I might say: “it’s an experience that unfortunately happened to you, something that may happen, try to forget, seek all legal ways” – but I was saying that in the abstract, purely in the abstract – “that you think you can follow if you deem that you suffered an injustice” – albeit the Cassazione ruling is in the dubitative formula (Art. 530 § 2. cpp).
But then the Vanityfair journalist does not report my *second* statement, that is, the other one I said just following: “And what about if they are guilty? If they were guilty I’d suggest them to remind that our human life ends as trial that has an irreversible sentence, that will last forever”. My answer was made of two statements, not of one. Both were rhetorical and hypothetical. The last statement was the one I thought would have unleashed criticism, but curiously it’s the one missing in the article, there is no comment about it.
Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and compliment me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented me about the Narducci case. It was somehow satisfying because it came after many years of difficulties and attacks. The Perugian people expressed their support to me because of the Narducci case, and secondarily they also expressed their support because of my independency in facing the international media campaign that was mounted against me after the Kercher case.
I don’t know if Vanityfair was the one which made up or spun my answers, falsely reporting them from the Netflix documentary, or if it was Netflix itself who made them up by editing the interview and disseminating content from a video prior to the premiere. I had a positive experience working with the documentary directors at the time. Not knowing what the journalist watched or made up, I will anyway reserve my decision as a consequence. I have to say, I am quite disconcerted about the way a certain American environment appears to think and keeps going on in a raving manner about this case.
One stunning aspect of this, is that the narrative they put forward, such as in the article we talk about, seems to be based on a focus on me, as if I were to become a kind of key character functional to their fictional story. I found this particularly strange since in reality the Kercher case investigation was actually based on the work of a number of judiciaries, all of them making decisions with a power that was equal, or greater than mine. So is how the Italian system works on these type of serious crimes.
The fact that even a second Public Minister was appointed almost from the beginning may suggest that we didn’t have personal investment: I asked Manuela Comodi – who has my equal rank, is not my deputy – to share the investigation and deal with the technical parts, such as the expert witnesses, since she is very good in this area. The other, multiple judiciaries involved beside us, all had greater powers, each of them could have stopped the investigation or changed its orientation and settings.
Therefore, a personalization of the case – as if I had some kind of special power – or a “polarization” of it – like a narrative that is woven between me and one of the suspects as main characters – that appears unrealistic to any person with a minimum of understanding of the system. Indeed if there are reporters who like to make up a story where a person with my name plays the role of a picturesque fictional character, motivated by “moral” or religious obsessions or else, all of this only shows an agenda pursued by those journalists that tells much more about them and about the type of campaign they are part of, than about the case.
There is anyway one important element which, unfortunately, I know was left out from the documentary – partly because it was produced earlier than the publication of the Cassazione ruling – I know that something the documentary omits to mention, is the actual content of the latest ruling by the Fifth Panel of Cassazion. If we leave aside, for a moment, the several issues of consistency and law inherent in the ruling itself (those that may be spotted by those who read it with some knowledge of the topics), there is anyway the fact that the ruling confirms certain findings.
Some facts recognized as certain by the Cassazione, not reported in the documentary, are that it is anyway a “proven fact” that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of crime when crime was committed. The same ruling also points out how it is proven beyond doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by more than one person, and Rudy Guede certainly acted together with others. The fact that Amanda Knox was certainly there is emphasized by the Court to the point of noting their agreement with the lower Court on the fact that Ms. Knox heard Meredith’s harrowing scream, and even noted that she had the victim’s blood on her hands, that she washed them in order to clean them from Meredith’s blood.
The High Court only raises a reasonable doubt about the active participation of Amanda Knox in the action of killing. The Court – in agreement with other definitive findings – also reminds that Ms. Knox voluntarily lied as she falsely accused an innocent, and notes that no way could this finding ever be overturned. All these things are missing in the documentary. I’d like all American friends to bear in mind these last bits of information as well, whenever they decide to seek information about the Kercher case.
“Some facts recognized as certain by the Cassazione, not reported in the documentary, are that it is anyway a “proven fact” that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of crime when crime was committed. The same ruling also points out how it is proven beyond doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by more than one person, and Rudy Guede certainly acted together with others. The fact that Amanda Knox was certainly there is emphasized by the Court to the point of noting their agreement with the lower Court on the fact that Ms. Knox heard Meredith’s harrowing scream, and even noted that she had the victim’s blood on her hands, that she washed them in order to clean them from Meredith’s blood”.
“The High Court only raises a reasonable doubt about the active participation of Amanda Knox in the action of killing. The Court – in agreement with other definitive findings – also reminds that Ms. Knox voluntarily lied as she falsely accused an innocent, and notes that no way could this finding ever be overturned. All these things are missing in the documentary. I’d like all American friends to bear in mind these last bits of information as well, whenever they decide to seek information about the Kercher case”.
Thank you so much Dr.Mignini. More of this please.
Honesty and integrity always win and shine through in the end.
Yeah Deathfish: “...also reminds that Ms. Knox voluntarily lied as she falsely accused an innocent, and notes that no way could this finding ever be overturned.”
You notice that is a shot across the bows of the knox “appeal” to ECHR of course. The ECHR requires that processes be final before it recommends anything, and that is very final. I wonder how Knox is explaining that in Toronto.
Kudos to Giuliano and a very good translation. A simple and reasoned response. The antidote to hare-brained twisters peddling bunk.
Reposted from last one ....
Knox is in Toronto for the film festival—illegally. She has no right to be in Canada
There are rules about convicted felons entering. True, Canada “suspends” records (much like the UK “spent convictions”), but it would not kick in until 2020. A 3 year sentence for calunnia, expiring November 2010, then as an indictable offense, would be a 10 year waiting period. I also seriously doubt she applied for a waiver.
140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
(2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Also, there are rules preventing those from entering who admit drug use.
Finally, Canada is not “supposed” to admit those who pose a danger to the public.
Giuliano Mignini deserves a lot of credit. He’s an intelligent and principled man who did his utmost to make sure Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito didn’t get away with murder.
I’ve read so many lies about him in the media spread by unscrupulous and thick journalists who enthusiastically support a sadistic sex killer. They are deeply perverse. They disgust me beyond words. If they’re going to publicly defend someone who has been convicted of sexual assault and an exceptionally brutal murder, they should get their facts straight, but they never have done. Most of their arguments for Amanda Knox’s innocence are pack of lies.
Mignini made some important observations about Bruno and Marasca’s report i.e. they stated Rudy Guede and others killed Meredith and it’s certain Amanda Knox was present when Meredith was killed and she washed her Meredith’s blood off her hands. It’s not difficult to work out who these others are. All the journalists have covered the case need to be made aware of this because many of them have wrongly claimed Knox was exonerated by the Italian Supreme Court.
Kudos to Mignini, for pointing out the lesser reported facts:
(1) Cassation says Knox was at the crime scene.
(2) Cassation says Guede did not act alone.
(3) Knox did falsely accuse someone.
(4) Matteini, Ricciarelli, Micheli are found against Knox.
(5) Bruno/Marasca is very inconsistent.
(6) Bruno/Marasca never actually said Knox was innocent.
As for this film in Toronto
From the Criminal Records Act ....
Restrictions on application for record suspension
4 (1) A person is ineligible to apply for a record suspension until the following period has elapsed after the expiration according to law of any sentence, including a sentence of imprisonment, a period of probation and the payment of any fine, imposed for an offence:
(a) 10 years, in the case of an offence that is prosecuted by indictment or is a service offence for which the offender was punished by a fine of more than five thousand dollars, detention for more than six months, dismissal from Her Majesty’s service, imprisonment for more than six months or a punishment that is greater than imprisonment for less than two years in the scale of punishments set out in subsection 139(1) of the National Defence Act; or
(b) five years, in the case of an offence that is punishable on summary conviction or is a service offence other than a service offence referred to in paragraph (a).
From immigration Ministry ....
What you can do
Depending on the crime, how long ago it was and how you have behaved since, you may still be allowed to come to Canada, if you:
convince an immigration officer that you meet the legal terms to be deemed rehabilitated, or
applied for rehabilitation and were approved, or
were granted a record suspension or
have a temporary resident permit.
Great response from Dr. Mignini! Respect for his dedication to justice for Meredith Kercher.
Charlotte Gill writing for the Independent, has written an article about the “Amanda Knox” documentary here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/netflix-amanda-knox-documentary-2016-watching-making-a-murderer-the-jinx-murder-porn-immoral-examine-a7240836.html#commentsDiv
“If you think watching Netflix’s new Amanda Knox documentary is the right thing to do, you need to examine your morals”.
“Amanda Knox’s apparent disregard for the Kercher family has been downright unbelievable. The kindest thing she could have done since her release from prison would have been to slip away, out of sight. But she has exploited her situation for all it’s worth”
Charlotte Gill - Sept. 13, 2016
“Serial. Making a Murderer. Who Killed JonBenet? The Jinx. When will the public appetite end for documentaries about murdered people? Apparently never – which is why Netflix’s latest documentary about Amanda Knox is generating so much enthusiasm. “Can’t wait for this”, “Wanna watch this!” and “Saturday night saving” were just some of the comments I saw on Facebook groups in the wake of news that it would soon be available to binge-watch…
...My viewing habits are hardly holy, and I confess that I was lured into Making a Murderer at start. It was gripping and bizarre, and – being based on events in Wisconsin – felt removed enough from my existence to constitute entertainment. But in the months after its release, I noticed a concerning cultural trend: the public’s need for grizzly amusement had begun to eclipse concern for grieving families. And it’s gone too far…
...The near-decade since her killing has played out worse than anyone could have imagined. Amanda Knox’s apparent disregard for the Kercher family has been downright unbelievable. The kindest thing she could have done since her release from prison would have been to slip away, out of sight. But she has exploited her situation for all it’s worth, with insensitive interviews, a lucrative book deal, and now Netflix.
...In a trailer for the documentary, Knox stares into the camera, dead behind the eyes. “I am you,” she pleads (NB: No, you’re really not). It’s edited in such a way as to make everyone ask: did she or didn’t she do it? The deliberate sensationalism is tacky and frankly, I just wish she’d go away…
...Crime documentary makers are not objective, nor jurors; they are sensationalists there to provide entertainment to bloodthirsty viewers. And what they produce – around 10 hours of addictive viewing, followed by endless media discussion surrounding it – is another person’s lifetime of misery…
...I urge you to do the same when this documentary comes out. It’s not Saturday night fun; it’s cruelty for a family still suffering from an unthinkable loss. The right thing is not to watch it…
...The near-decade since her killing has played out worse than anyone could have imagined. Amanda Knox’s apparent disregard for the Kercher family has been downright unbelievable. The kindest thing she could have done since her release from prison would have been to slip away, out of sight. But she has exploited her situation for all it’s worth, with insensitive interviews, a lucrative book deal, and now Netflix.”
The FOA are out in force in the comments, defending Knox since she’s been ‘exonerated’ and is ‘innocent’. No, she was acquitted because of insufficient evidence. And even the court held that if mistakes had not been made earlier on, she might well have been found guilty.
AIUI You cannot get a Temporary Residence Visa unless five years has expired since your serious criminal conviction.
Therefore, it is obvious Amanda Knox did not apply for a TRV (as she is not eligible, and even if she tried applying anyway, takes about five months to come through).
I applaud The Machine’s remarks about the integrity of Mignini, and about thick and unscrupulous journalists.
Mignini sounds the trumpet of truth again. He dared much to allow the Netflix documentary to use his image for their own purposes.
The pinnacle of Mignini’s clarifying statement is his challenge to the documentary to not hide how the Supreme Court found Knox was present at the crime, Amanda washed Meredith’s blood off her hands.
I hope the Netflix viewers will hear this side of Meredith’s story, this court ruling.
Mignini fears this very important fact will be edited out, just as much of his interview was made to disappear or was twisted. He isn’t sure who did that, whether it was Netflix or Vanity Fair, but he says emphatically:
“All statements within quotation marks as reported in the article by Bachrach are false….” He says they are made up or the product of spin or reported with a changed context.
He calls the Netflix story fictional.
He is shocked at the determination to make him the face of the prosecution as if he’s a lone ranger, when many other judges of equal stature were involved. They’ve made him the tip of the spear to create a dramatic point rather than to understand the multiplicity of judicial players, the Italian standard.
Mignini wonders if the docu-makers do this to cast him as the moral heavy, or as someone with religious obsessions. He himself is a moral man, a devout Christian, whose faith demands the truth and objectivity to find it. He says he did not pre-judge Amanda Knox on her morals but on strict law, whether she had committed a distinct act of violence.
Her motive or morals did not affect that rational decision. If a criminal act was committed that was where the prosecution began.
He was most cautious, and there was Brother Raffaele the Padre Pio lover also suspected of murder or accessory, whose sister was law enforcement, whose father a medical doctor.
None of this mattered, least of all Knox’s immoral lifestyle. It was her bloody footprints on the floor, her changing alibi, her DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in a distant bedroom. A broken window and a lie about it. A finger pointed at her boss, her boyfriend telling police he lied for her. These are what compromised Amanda Knox, not her revolving door of men.
Mignini used the blindfold of justice to prevent leaning toward the rich or the poor, the clean or the unclean. If Raffaele and Amanda had produced a solid alibi for the night of the murder, they would have been as free to go home as Robyn Butterworth.
It is marvelous to see the Lion of Perugia speak his mind again.
He was staunch and endured the onslaughts of the ignorant media once before to keep justice alive, he can do it again.
Thanks to TJMK translators he has set the record straight after the garbled Bachrach report.
As there is no rational reason why a random prosecutor would decide to frame a nice Catholic boy and his loud American girlfriend, a bogeyman had to be invented. Enter Doug Preston, seething with resentment at being forced to leave Italy because of his authorly nosiness into the MOF affair and encouraged on his way by Mignini, a perfect bogeyman was born.
Mignini was called out to the case in the early hours, he saw poor Meredith’s broken body and vowed he would bring the culprits to justice, as did Napoleoni and Stefanoni. None of them had any reason to focus on Sollecito or Knox. Enter the stewing Preston perceiving Amanda as his fellow countryman. He dons his white shining armour and goes galloping in on the ‘Mignini is a satanist hunter’, theme to demonise the anti-demon.
It is amusing and macabre to see Knox and Sollecito both jump onto the ‘Mignini is a mad prosecutor’ theme in their latterday interviews. It’s as if they are becoming to believe their own lies and really did have nothing to do with the murder and there is no evidence.
Knox even adopts a dramatic overly modulated ‘Hollywood-horror film’ voiceover in the trailer to McGinn and Blackhurst’s ridiculous documentary film, which has at its core the message, ‘Amanda Knox was tried and condemned by Nick Pisa, a DM hack and the mad monk Mignini’, and not by a fair court of law.
Next we’ll see AK starring in her own Hollywood movie with Donald Sutherland playing Mignini and with a crazy title such as, ‘Amanda and the Mad Monk’, with much screaming and ominous dark foreboding Amanda imperious voiceovers warning of the terrors to come, with lots of shadows and black men ready to leap out and scare you out of your wits. The grating voice will suddenly break with a small sob, ‘I was just a KID!’
Lots of atmospheric spooking background soundtrack to underline her chilling portentious words.
The credits will roll and all the old troll names will be there. Stephen Robert Morse, but not Bruce Fischer, who has to lie down in a dark room at the snub. ‘The b*tch,’ he wails, ‘After all I’ve done for you, all those supporting sycophantic comments below your FB posts and crummy articles, and I don’t even get a kiss on the cheek.’
The film will end with a zany LMFAO Party Rock dance with eccentric Chris in his snow leopard baggy pants, zebra-stripe beard, Elton John glasses and Seattle prep jacket with ‘Amanda’ emblazoned on the right pocket, and the whole loony crowd of Friends of Amanda cartwheeling, backflipping and cocking a snook at Meredith’s family and friends, and all of us.
It’s a mad mad world and for the pleasure-loving Amanda it’s been the longest craziest acid trip she ever dreamt of.
And now they’re doing a serious documentary about her.
The dignity that Dr. Mignini has shown during this case is remarkable.
Considering the outrageous things and bare faced lies that have been manufactured and levelled at him by seemingly shameless family and supporters (including the media outlets funding Knox and Solecitto) he has shown amazing restraint.
One of the most shocking but sad facts of this case has been the vocal and truly crazed people who belong to the group who support both Knox and her less than two week boyfriend Sollecito - even amazingly to the extent of proclaiming publicly that they even regard “Raffie” as their very own family member.
It is actually quite scary but unfortunately true that these people exist but warming to see that Dr. Mignini can easily deal with these people using some very simple truths.
Really nice to read Mignini’s words. He comes across as professional and measured.
I total agree with The Machine; disgusting the way he has been treated.
Re Netflix/Knox: what is it with her voice? “I found myself tossed into this dark place”. Her voice sounds like an actors voice (a very poor one). It sounds so put on.
@Slow Jane, it’s so true, and the image of Knox’s new boyfriend Chris in his snow leopard pants with striped beard doing leaps and larks—is he the inner Amanda of cartwheel and cat whisker fame? Your comment overflows with truth and is way more entertaining than the Netflix doc will be.
Doug Preston is still seething about Mignini spanking his charlatan self out of Italy. Knox and Raffaele had their first intense interface with Mignini in the early days of their long ordeal, and they’re still angry they couldn’t pull the wool over his eyes or stayed more silent.
Of course they know that Mignini respects Francesca Maresca. It’s Maresca who lowered the boom of the civil suit against Knox, with big money for her to pay. That’s a source of hatred.
You mention how Knox and Raf sound like they’re beginning to believe their own smoke and mirrors. I agree. Their own lies are the new truth for them as a fragile way to stay sane. Now they want the whole world screaming, “We know you didn’t do it!” to salve their wounded conscience. If the world did voice that lie, would that heal their minds? No, but it soothes their pride. And cha-ching, may have income potential.
There’s an old movie called “The Girl Next Door” starring Tracey Gold. She falls in love with a policeman who uses her naivete to get her to pull the trigger on his wife. She balks but is finally manipulated into doing it for the sake of their love. She moves into the policeman’s house and tries to mother his children to erase her debt to their mother whom she killed. Things go well for a while on the surface, but the young woman finds herself trying on the dead woman’s shoes, learning all she can about her victim. She says it makes her feel better to subsume her personality into the woman’s she robbed.
It’s like she’s trying to give back emotionally all that she stole from the person she killed.
An obsession with the dead woman begins. Later she has night terrors and awful dreams, recreating the murder. She begins to see the woman’s ghost standing there looking at her with pale, uncomprehending eyes that stare and terrify her.
She becomes unraveled. She lives life on autopilot for daily tasks, half alive.
At last she goes to the real police to confess.
They plant a bug in the house and she leads her murderous lover to confess his part in the crime. They are both arrested and jailed.
This was based on a true story. It’s hard not to imagine Knox having such sleepless nights, such bad dreams and visions and Sollecito too. He copes with his guilt by running a find-a-grave business to aid fellow grievers. This way he can keep loss ever before him as his way of penance. He copes with his wounded pride by stalking about Italy on TV shows or public panels to discuss justice and get pats on the back for his tragedy.
So maybe they’re both feeling better about themselves having suffered a lot in their minds from the guilt, thinking they’ve suffered long enough to feel clear of the Perugia crime. They now believe the lie that they are entirely innocent of it. They think they’ve balanced the scales.
Indeed, Hopeful. The dramatic, ‘I was just a KID!’ is very telling. It’s mitigation. A confession of having done it.
Why else would you say that, except as an excuse, or rationalisation.
I just watched a film on TV called ‘Kids Who Kill’
It was about a group of kids who even though they only knew the victim slightly, and in one case not at all, went along with the killing anyway. The psychological aspect of the show is a total parallel of Knox and Sollecito. All it took was one instigator (Knox) and the two dupes Sollecito with his fascination with knifes and comic books and Guede with a promise of sex. This was after you had screwed Knox anyway thereby creating for himself a stupid misguided feeling of power. HA It was Knox all along of course. If you get the chance see that particular installment. It’s word for word concerning the sick bitch Amanda Knox and how her manipulative mind works.
As comments above focus so much on the psychology, here is something we havent posted on that you might like to know.
Pretty well all the books written in English on the case are widely regarded in Italy as a joke. Only John Kercher’s Meredith sells well.
Some are refuted in Italy in depth as Michele Giuttari refutes Doug Preston’s tirades and brainstorms about the Monster of Florence case.
There are several good books in Italian on Meredith’s case, and one is very very good. Meredith Light And Shadows In Perugia.
This is by the best reporter in Italy on the case, Giuseppe Castellini, and the leading criminal psychologist in Italy, Vincenzo Mastronardi.
We really wish it was available in English, but it is not. Very telling is that the defenses never even let out one squeak of protest about the book.
Dr Mignini really never says anything in court that at least one expert has not analysed for him first. He resists having any opinions solely his own.
He mentions Dr Vincenzo Mastronardi above, as his psychology expert, about halfway through.
Dr Mastronardi is in fact vastly more qualified than Saul Kassin and John Douglas and other ill-qualified Americans who have introduced flaky psychology into the case.
Now we know that a psychologist was asked to evaluate Sollecito and Knox very early on and Guede when he was returned.
Results and the name of the psychologist were never given out but it was probably Dr Mastronardi who interviewed the three.
Although Dr Mignini does not ever talk of the assessments made, they strongly influenced the Matteini, Ricciarelli, and Supreme Courts 2007-08 in not letting Sollecito and Knox out on house arrest.
They were considered a possible danger to witnesses who might testify.
Given how the crazy Knox supporters in particular have acted as a lynch mob against all who support the prosecution case and mounted several screaming attacks in Perugia itself, that was pretty smart.
Late in the 2009 trial Dr Mastronardi and another respected psychiatrist, Dr Alessandro Merluzzi, testified in court. They and not Dr Mignini explained to the jury the probable psychological dynamics of the attack, and why Guede ran away.
Does Judy Bachrach know all of this? I guess not. Our large collection of psychology posts by the way are very good. Mostly by professionals, as usual here.
Slow Jane, I agree. Also, ‘“I was just a kid” - who travelled to and worked in Italy alone, had used drugs and alcohol, and had had sexual lovers and found a new boyfriend in Italy. No doubt her fans would say ‘but she read Harry Potter’, (like many adults).
Many years ago in Scotland we had a horrific killing of a young student by a pack of teenage thugs, high on drink and drugs. The deceased was a handsome, popular boy who happened to be at the same school as my two young twin sisters; albeit he was about four years ahead of them.
During the trial, which was covered extensively by the Scottish media, psychologists had explained that there was a ringleader amongst the thugs who had led the attack on the young man in the street. Murder was not premeditated but once the initial blow was struck and blood started flowing, a kind of mass hysteria took over and the pack joined in. The young man ended up hacked to pieces. Literally.
The gang were jailed but are all free men now, doubtless amounting to nothing and living off the state. Meanwhile the straight A student’s family are the ones to serve a life sentence knowing these animals are out and about, some of them still in their 20s when they were freed.
The parallels between this case and the Meredith Kercher case are not manifold but the pack leader influencing the followers certainly is similar. I’m not convinced that Meredith’s murder was premeditated either but that Knox initiated the attack and then struck the final blow is fairly certain.
One day society will wake up and realise that vermin need to be exterminated. Including human vermin. The rehabilitation successes are vanishingly small and render the attempt to do so for the worst cases utterly futile.
Although I’m entirely unreligious, I do like the eye for an eye mantra from the bible. I can get on board with that.
Yes. Some killings are beyond any excuse.
Given strict checks and balances, the death penalty should remain available to deal with those inexcusables.
Hey Chimera, would you author & share an online petition (change.org or other such site) to raise the issue of Knox being allowed into Can. with her criminal record - addressed to the appropriate minister or fed agency? You know a lot about Can. law.
Wonderful article! Dr. Mignini is amazing - oh if only the pro-obKnoxi could be put in their place by an international news agency’s unbiased & unmanipulated interview with Dr. Mignini broadcast all over hell’s half acre so the facts can be known by the many instead of the few. He is SO articulate & intelligent & professional & knowledgeable of Italian law - & the machinations of & evidence against ak & rs.
I am against the death penalty for the following reasons:
- it is barbaric.
- as it has to be administered by the state, it means the job has to be delegated to employees, this means people don’t take responsibility for their own actions. (Over eight million ordinary Germans actively supported and implemented the Holocaust, for example, as edicted by the state
- it makes courts even less likely to find a defendant guilty and will settle for lesser charges instead, because of the finality of a death penalty. It is hard enough already to secure a conviction.
- a life sentence in prison is a good, more humane, alternative.
- in the case of young offenders, we have to allow for the fact they are more gullible and may well grow and develop to atone for their ‘mistakes’.
- It is the mark of an advanced civilised society to not stoop to the same level as its criminal offenders. For example, Anders Breivik, in Norawy. His crime is so heinous, so depraved, but he is locked up in his isolation cell to ponder the enormity of his crimes, away from decent society.
Amanda Knox, Rduy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito might well have been given the death sentence in the USA, and good riddance, but that only makes the state barbaric, too.
I see Spezi died. He and Preston were a toxic pair. Doing the mafia’s handiwork in bringing Italian justice down a peg. We have the proof that they were trying to frame an innocent man in the MOF case.
In the past few years Spezi lost time after time in court as a direct result. It affected his health. Preston is home-free for now but his reputation in Italy is not pretty to see. Does everybody understand what this was about?
Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and compliment me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented me about the Narducci case.
In essence Dr Mignini and Michele Giuttari are in the court of public opinion if not in an Italian court considered to have solved the Monster of Florence case. Narducci WAS involved and they figured it out.
Dr Mignini and Michele Giuttari have been on national TV several times and Michele Giuttari has written a book about the case and half his new biography is about it too.
This is a pretty dimwitted shafting by Wikipedia, Dr Mignini is popular and successful and deserves a lot better than this.
@Slow Jane: Thank-you for sharing your perspectives on the death penalty.
I do enjoy our civilized TJMK dialogues; can we agree to mutually respect our differences?
Hi Peter. One thing really of note in the Netflix documentary: the poor quality of its research into the case itself. Not surprised since its producer Stephen Morse kept tweeting links to Bruce Fischer’s site, LOL.
But I’ll add while they included a reference to the Marasca-Bruno report in the closing credits, they reported its conclusions incorrectly. Knox was NOT found innocent or that she wasn’t present that night. Will update you with pictures for your series..
Italy verdict is meaningless, I hate to say. Knox + clown travel to Canada like U.S. celebs. What does it take to get a factual piece published in a mainstream U.S. newspaper of record, much less a mainstream TV channel! We have been preaching to the choir here, on .org & TJMK for way too long. The facts are clearly available for all to see, here, and especially on the Wiki site. Based on the past record I see more disappointment ahead with ECHR. How about we follow the money, because someone is bankrolling all this? A Trump connection was mentioned once upon a time.
Mignini’s comment is great but shouldn’t it be sent to Vanity and other publisher. What bothers me I am afraid that Knox’ criminal report in USA is blank. There should be a way to put her Felony verdict in it as well all her murder courts with her final acquital due insuff. evidence. I saw in different criminal reports that there are listed all charges and courts even if dismissed or aquitted. Could maybe Mignini do it, sending the appropriate documents to the justice authorities in USA? I am afraid that Italy did not do it.
Hi Elisa. Yes the statement was sent. We routinely do that. Typically we dont hear back but for the most part (obviously not in the obtuse Bachrach’s case) that’s the last time they show their heads above the parapets. There have been dozens like that.
Knox’s felony conviction has been widely emailed by others to Federal and State authorities. Although she has done her time for the Patrick framing she would have to declare that on certain forms (though not employment applications any more). When the ECHR “appeal” fails to reverse that it should be news here.
Regarding this Daily Beast article:
I note that Morse was never mentioned and by the second paragraph they have it that Knox was exonerated.
Even more interesting to note is the filmed interviews with Knox where shot just before she was found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher for the second time,
while the interview with Dr. Mignini was shot years later after Knox was wrongly cleared due to so called faulty evidence.
A tad disingenuous for starters.
What fun they must have had editing all this together.
All the time lately i am thinking of a reall movie about Meredith’s murder named “How to get away with murder” , the true story of AK and RS. I am sure, such a thriller would make a lot of money…
FYI, Deathfish, Morse was involved in the project for almost six years now. https://twitter.com/rodblackhurst/status/773509942468759554
@all4justice—I’ve sent something to Pete.
Hi Chimera and all4justice
Yes Chimera has done more great legal work, explaining why Knox was probably illegally in Canada.
The post will be coming up in our new Lies Of Omission series where Knox and others (Netflix included) are “forgetting” that Knox served three years, and that the Supreme Court ruled there is NO going back on that.
The ECHR now looking at Knox’s “appeal” is unlikely to suggest (that is all they can do, suggest) to the Italian Government in face of that that they make Knox’s guilty verdict void.
Knox was never pressured to finger Patrick, in fact the cops were very kind to her on 5-6 Nov 2007 when she melted down and repeatedly hit herself (no cop did that, Knox did) as she admitted at trial.
Her own lawyers in fact ignored her rapidly morphing lies about police pressure in 2007 and 2008 (repeated once again in the amazingly misleading Netflix flick) and one lawyer even walked off the job.