Correcting Netflix 21: Longer, Better Interviews With Dr Mignini Show Clearly How Netflix Cherrypicked Him
1 How Netflix Cherrypicked
First please check our previous post Dr Mignini Responds To A Reporter Misrepresenting Him About The Report.
Other British and American reporters have also tried to play “gotcha” with Dr Mignini by cherrypicking his replies when the English version comes out. The exact same trick the Netflix team played on Dr Mignini was played by KOMO TV in Seattle, CNN, CBS, and the Guardian. To all of those he later replied.
Dr Mignini was led to understand that the Netflix production team was a respected Danish group. He was not told that it consisted of several American crackpots notorious over the years for harassing reporters and justice officials around Perugia and online.
Dr Mignini was seated in front of a camera by interviewers who knew no Italian and seemingly knew very little about the case or about the version of Knox Italy saw in 2007 and 2008 before the play-acting cut in. They appeared to want only light simple titillating stuff, aimed at about 12-year-olds.
The team didn’t happen to mention that half his interview would end up on the cutting room floor - or that Amanda Knox would be given more than twice the time, to spin unchallenged a number of long-rebutted lies.
2. Netflix’s Dishonest Takeaway
The takeway of well over 100 reviewers (we will soon be posting quotes from all of them) was that (1) Dr Mignini invented a sex crime and (2) next thing Knox was convicted, based pretty well solely on that.
In the interview below, mirrored by others, Dr Mignini explains how very much more complicated than that it was to narrow down to Knox’s definite involvement. His team took into account dozens of factors and put them all in evidence.
And our interrogation hoax series shows how he handed over control of the investigation almost instantly after Knox’s arrest to Judge Matteini (never mentioned by Netflix) and numerous other judges (never mentioned by Netflix) including Supreme Court judges in 2008 who in fact took a harder line rather than releasing Knox as they could have done.
3. The Long-Form Mignini Interview
This interview came to us almost by accident. It is the full transcript of Drew Griffin of CNN and Dr Mignini. Griffin, who speaks no Italian, later tried to hide almost all of what was on the recording, and instead cherrypicked and disparaged Dr Mignini despite his courtesy in doing the interview.
Skeptical Bystander of Perugia Murder File obtained the recording. Translation was by Clander, Yummi, Jools, Thoughtful, TomM and Catnip.
4’09’’ CNN: There have been many stories about this crime, about what people think happened. What do you think really happened?
4’20’’ Mignini: Well, I am a magistrate for the Public Prosecutor’s Office who found himself ... I was on duty at the time and thus I happened to be dealing with this matter randomly. For me it is a criminal proceeding that I dealt with, and I am currently working on it today at the appeal level.
4’49’’ What happened was that a crime was committed for which we conducted an investigation in the best way considering the situation. And there was a trial which, in the first instance, resulted in conviction with full acknowledgement of the theory of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. I know there have been books, there were also films on the subject, but this is something for which I have limited interest. My job is to be a prosecutor for the Public Prosecutor’s Office who dealt with this case. I am interested in it from this point of view, nothing else.
6’30’’ CNN: But exactly how was the crime like, what you and your assistants, I do not say [missing words: *what happened?] ... but [what] you understood, who are the murderers, and the reason for this murder?
6’46’’ 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.
8’38’’ So there was this crime of a sexual nature and a simulated burglary. That is, the perpetrators or perpetrator, at that moment we were making a preliminary assessment, was someone who attempted, that appeared to be the situation to us, he had attempted [missing words] So that appeared to be the situation, an investigation of unknown persons; whereas instead the house, the house door was completely intact, there had not been a been a breaking open, and this made us think, then, as the investigations progressed, because as investigations go, by approximation you slowly get closer to it, to the ascertaining of the facts, it was, we thought it was someone who knew the victim and had an interest in orienting the investigation toward strangers.
09’44’’ Then the investigation went on. There were other important issues ... [missing word: *facts?] that have occurred [missing words]; they remained as key aspects of ... of what is called the basis of the charge. Which, by the way, for us is not the side of the accusation; we are an office that also has the task of ascertaining facts in favor of the suspect during the investigation.
10’19’’ What struck us besides the issue of the simulation was a series of endless contradictions, of inconsistencies, in the story of the two young people, the two young people who later became suspects and then defendants. And then, in particular, the calunnia [false accusation], then, what turned out to be such, a false accusation, made by the accused against her employer, a black man, Lumumba, Patrick D. Lumumba.
10’53” Here it is, this is it. Then, the elements of which there is much talk today, the elements which consist of forensic evidence, there was also evidence. There are the fingerprints, the [foot] prints, the phone cell records. These elements are ..., especially the forensics, they arose at a later time. This means, from the beginning what oriented the investigations toward these people, and later toward the black subject, Rudy, Rudy Herman Guede, who ... [missing word?] they were, that of Herman Guede was identified through the forensic material that was found.
The two youths were, let’s say they became objects of”¦[missing words?] the perpetrators of the murder, based on the findings that emerged at the beginning of the investigation, namely the simulation, the contradictions found especially in Amanda’s story, especially when she tells of having spent some time in the house, having taken a shower, in spite of everything. And then the call, the behavior that they maintained, especially the girl, upon the arrival of the postal police. And then the accusation, which was obviously a false accusation against Lumumba. So all these factors then they have, they led to the formulation of these accusations against them, which were later substantiated by the results of forensic tests, scientific evidence, were made by the scientific police, that is, the scientific police, which is that at the top of the national scientific police, which operates directly under the department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior. We also had the local scientific police, but the one which operated was the scientific police placed under the command of Public Safety, thus at the central level.
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?
17’00’’ Mignini: The scientific elements were coming in, as I recall, they were coming in gradually. Now, I would not be able to tell you [missing words] ... I think, for example, that the issue of the knife, and then the sample, the genetic profile of the victim on the blade and the genetic profile of the defendant on a spot where the handle of the knife is close to the insertion of the blade, I think that was entered quite later compared to the initial investigation. But in fact the order of detention, ... which I ... which is the act by which, under which the two young people and, at the time, also Lumumba who was later released, were taken to the house of preventive detention, that is in prison. In this detention order, there was no mention of any DNA analysis [indagini genetiche], obviously.
18’08’’ There is, in the detention order and in the hearing before the Judge of the Preliminary Investigation [GIP] on the validity of the detention and then in the first months, the first weeks of investigation, that is our belief, mine and the flying squad, 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.
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.
Then other elements are given by the fact, were given by the fact that the homeless man saw them on the night of the crime in a location a few steps, a few meters away from the crime and at a time shortly before the murder occurred.
There is a statement of the neighbor lady who lived nearby, who heard a scream at a time compatible with that specified, with what we thought could be the time of death of Meredith, that is between 23.30 and midnight. And this, this lady, heard footsteps, there is a whole description that now I will not repeat because it has been explained ... rather, it was described at length in the first trial, she heard the footsteps of some people who are moving, running, along the clear ground facing the house of the crime, others were running up the stairs, almost simultaneously, running on the metal stairs which are above the garage and basically end up in via Pinturicchio. I do not know if you are familiar with the city of Perugia, but I guess not. So this scream the lady heard, a terrible scream and also another neighbor heard it, at a consistent time, I repeat, and this simultaneous running of subjects on opposite sides, from different, distant areas, basically corroborated the fact that there were multiple murderers.
26’09’’ Rudy himself, in his questioning has, while remaining vague, more or less vague with respect to Sollecito, however later during the various interviews he more or less indicated quite clearly that Amanda was present.
Then [we had] the questioning, then there were questionings that were done. I remember one of them, that of Amanda in prison which was an interrogation that has made me”¦ you asked what elements did I use to let’s say support the charge, saying in quotes the prosecution, there was also an interrogation in prison, Amanda, in inverted commas let’s say the accusation in the presence of the defense attorneys of course, and which confirmed the profound shock in which she always fell every time she had to tell what happened that night.And then there were the results”¦ well, fingerprints ... footprints, the footprints on the rug of the bare foot stained with blood, an especially important detail which I see many have not talked about but which is extremely important, is the mixed stains of blood in the small bathroom close the scene of crime, those of the defendant and the victim.
31’00’’ CNN: In the room [missing words]
31’05’’ Mignini: But let’s say I may reverse the issue: how do you explain the DNA, the genetic profile of the victim on the knife found in Sollecito’s house, together with the genetic profile of the defendant located at the area of the blade [possibly meaning: handle] where force is applied, not where you cut”¦
31’40’’ CNN: Are you sure that one was the knife?
31’44’’ Mignini: That it was for us, I can say this: first you have to start from a premise: Amanda and Sollecito knew each other only since October 25. That is, we think, because this detail is very significant with respect to the relevance of this finding, since we [may just] think it was a relationship, usually we don’t think of the fact that actually they had known each other for a week. And thus this knife was never touched in conditions ... I tell you what we found in the investigation, I am talking about what we ascertained during the investigation - this knife was never touched by Meredith under normal circumstances. It was never brought to Meredith’s home, this is what the two Italian housemates say, and so why, [since] Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s house, why was Meredith’s genetic material found on the blade by the forensic police, and the genetic profile of the defendant on the spot of the handle that is where the hand would press not as you apply pressure from top down, but from back to the front, that is in a condition similar to that when you strike a blow, like this. So this”¦
And I have”¦ during the first trial I tried to show very clearly that this knife, the witness, the inspector I think whose name was Armando Finzi, he’s the one who conducted the search at Sollecito’s and found this knife. And I asked: did you put on your gloves at the time, was it the first pair of gloves you were using, in that search that was the first pair of gloves, he went [there], he started the inspection, he had not touched anything else, he opened the”¦ the cupboard where this knife was. I do not remember if he took away several, but he picked up this knife that was immediately - and thus with the gloves that he was wearing in that moment ““ it was immediately closed and sealed, was brought to the flying squad, where another police officer, the superintendent, I think, Gubbiotti, using the same technique, put it into a sealed container which was then carried to”¦ was then analyzed. So this was, let’s say because I wanted this to be highlighted and I think the Assize Court says so, I wanted to show that there was no possibility of contamination by the police, by the flying squad, with regard to this item.
35’04’’ Also because, I would like this to be noted, from the perspective of Italian law, evidence of contamination must be given by the person who invokes it. This means: I found the genetic profile, you as defense attorney say “˜there could be contamination’, you must prove it. That is, the burden of proof is reversed: it is you, the one who invokes the contamination, the one who has to give evidence of it. And this evidence was never given and cannot, I think, it cannot be given. That is, the one who claims a fact must prove it, onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. [Translator’s note: This sentence was spoken in Latin and translates as “the burden of proof is on those who assert something, not on those who deny it”.]
36’50’’ CNN: Was it certain the genetic material was that of Meredith, and not genetic material that might be consistent with that of Meredith?
37’01’’ Mignini: No, no, it was like that. It was ascertained as such by the scientific police.
37 “˜20’’ CNN: So your detectives went into the apartment ...
37’28’’ Mignini: No, the knife was collected, then it was brought to the scientific police, it was sent to the scientific police in Rome.
37’ 40’’ CNN: Yes but your detectives entered the apartment and they selected right this very knife”¦
37’49’’ Mignini: I believe samples were taken from several, that is, not only that particular knife. I think, if I’m not mistaken. I think more knives were tested; however, one of those was definitely exhibit 36, the famous exhibit 36. And on this exhibit is where [a sample] was recovered from, and here it’s the scientific police that did the evaluation of that evidence and I retain, I digress. About [case] aspects, at the end of the investigation phase I asked, given the complexity of the case, the resonance of the case, I felt it was appropriate to have a colleague join me, a deputy [public prosecutor] like myself. Let me clarify, I’m not the chief prosecutor; I am a deputy prosecutor, since I’ve been presented as the chief prosecutor, but I am not the chief prosecutor. Then I requested the assistance of a colleague, Manuela Comodi, and we divided up the tasks. She has remarkable aptitude for these aspects of a genetic nature.
And so in this regard, I don’t know if you notice it in the first instance trial, my colleague did the questioning regarding the genetic aspects. I instead handled the more generic aspects of the case and aspects of a more investigative nature. This is why I remember all the details of the investigation, because I carried out the investigations of people. But for these aspects of genetics and scientific nature, we rely on the scientific police and we retain that the scientific police acted with utmost professionalism. I can recall, for example, going to the crime scene, I was at the place, and I also had to wear overalls, shoe-covers and a kind of cap, not just once but several times, at the same time when we did the inspections, ... I remember having worn many times, for example, the shoe-covers. And I had to”¦ also because, those who worked on the scene did have their DNA samples taken as well, so there is also my DNA [sample]. Dr. Stefanoni took DNA samples of everyone to rule out in case, there could be DNA discovered belonging to some operator who had nothing to do with this matter.
40’38’’ Therefore, I have the utmost confidence in the scientific police because the top of the scientific police in Italy, especially Dr. Stefanoni who acted with great professionalism and these findings on the biological material were carried out in cross-examination with consultants for the defense team, always. The defense consultants, as I recall, and I was present, as far as I can remember, they had no objections if not in later analysis; they had no objection to anything at all at the time. For example, when the famous bra clasp was discovered, the defense consultants were there, for Sollecito there was a consultant who afterwards was replaced, I don’t remember his name, he was quite good, and I remember that he did not make any objections. Therefore, all these findings were carried out in cross-examination and the other parties had the opportunity to challenge what the scientific police biologist was doing, the scientific police expert in forensic genetics.
42’06’’ So I think. I distinctly remember that, in the first trial, I tried to prove that the knife had been collected with the utmost correctness. And I believe that afterwards the same thing happened in the scientific police laboratory when it was analyzed.
44’16’’ CNN: I still have trouble understanding how you can have a crime so horrendous and so bloody without two of the suspects leaving any trace.
44’30’’ Mignini: Look I should then add, it must be also said, at the time. In the bathroom of the two foreign girls, that is Meredith and Amanda, which is attached, next to the room of the murder, blood material was discovered of Amanda and Meredith, mixed. Why is this material important? It is important because in her own account told, in her own deposition Amanda makes in, I think, in early June of 2009, during the first instance trial, she says that when she left the house on the afternoon of November 1st, those spots were not there. She says so herself. So she returns in the morning, says she went back in the morning and sees those spots of blood. Those spots of blood are mixed Amanda and victim.
Also, in the small bathroom, there is a blood stained footprint, which the scientific police attributed to Raffaele, on the bath mat next to the murder room. On the corridor leading to the murder room, [and] leading to Amanda’s room, there are footprints, I’m not sure now, there are even in Amanda’s room, I think, there are footprints that were attributed to the two youngsters by the scientific police, of feet stained in blood. And, by elements, there is also a print of shoe and that one, was inside the murder room. Elements there are, that is, how to explain the presence of these elements if the two youngsters were not involved in the murder, [and] stayed at home? And another detail: it is a crime, this was established at the time by the Supreme Court, then we can no longer put into question at this point, it is a crime committed by several persons. I have, during the first instance trial, I heard this line of approach, and I also opposed this approach, which extended to holding that Rudy was the only one responsible.
The “only one responsible” is not one person, but [transcription error] they are several persons and Rudy is among them. This is now procedurally beyond dispute.
48’48’’ CNN: He also wants to know if you also found [missing words], that is, Sollecito perhaps, had a few cuts, did you check to see if he had any cuts?
48’56’’ Mignini: The”¦yes. Well, now: Laura Mazzetti, that is the Italian girl from Viterbo, [said] that it was a scratch, however, she remembers having seen on Amanda’s neck, she told this account and afterwards was also heard [as a person informed], it’s sort of a scratch just few days later, I think it was three or four days, she remembers seeing this scratch on Amanda’s neck that had been also seen, I think, by one of the boys from the Marches region. And in one of the photos taken during the house search by police, I think it shows something. Nevertheless, Laura Mazzetti indicates the presence of a scratch or something like a scratch. That is, she remembers seeing that Amanda had this little injury to the neck.
50’20’’ CNN: None of your investigators noticed it?
50’25’’ Mignini: The investigators did not notice it, because at the time, Amanda kept herself covered, she was, as described by the shopkeeper Quintavalle, covered up. However, Laura Mazzetti saw it and it was also seen, I think if I’m not mistaken or was said, by the young guy from the Marches who was living downstairs.
This girl saw it [the scratch/mark] and she stated this later in the courtroom. Moreover there is even a photo.
51’44’’ CNN: Knox was in contact with the police for several days after the murder. She was interrogated. Was she always wearing something that covered her neck?
52’00’’ Mignini: I think so, to be fair, this was a mark that it was not very visible. Laura Mazzetti said she saw it well. Keep in mind also that we did not focus on it automatically, because it was not like a visually striking mark. She was questioned like Raffaele Sollecito and like all the people who were more or less, that had to be questioned in those days, after the murder, a long series of people were questioned, among which the [girl] friends of Meredith, the English girls she was with the evening of Nov 1 and the night before Oct 31. And, among these people who had been questioned, also several times, Amanda and Sollecito were questioned, Amanda in particular was questioned several times: the evening of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then on the evening of 5th and the morning, or early hours of the 6th. But look, what I wanted that [??], just for the purposes of explanation, that under Italian law, we must take into account the totality of the findings.
Therefore there is the scientific evidence, there are statements made by people, examination of witnesses, there is the formal interrogation, there’s the conduct of the accused. All of these elements, it is not only the genetic aspect that comes into consideration. The genetic aspect [is], together with many others, must be altogether; it is a whole spectrum of various findings, which should converge towards an affirmation of a reality that is undisputable. This is how it should be, this is important from a judicial point of view. So it is not that the proof consists of the genetic evidence; it is not like that. There are items of proof from witnesses, there is the fact that there couldn’t be only one perpetrator, and this is now indisputable, and one of the positions of the defense of the two suspects always tended to say there was only one murderer who committed the deed, who climbed through in that totally absurd way, [that’s] not credible.
56’10’’ CNN: About Amanda’s interrogation, on the fifth day, what was it is that triggered you, made you begin to feel suspicious, and led you to conduct a more aggressive interrogation?
56’26’’ Mignini: I see you don’t”¦ so, I’ll repeat to you what happened. On the evening of November 5th, the police were going to question Sollecito, and on the evening of the 5th, as I was saying before, the attitude of Sollecito at the beginning was an attitude of, let’s say, different than the one he would assume later, meaning a defense line supportive with Amanda’s; at that moment, he had a different position. That is, on the evening of Nov 5th. Sollecito made a statement saying “I was at home, Amanda wasn’t”. Amanda at that time had followed; she had accompanied Sollecito to the police station and she waited outside [of the room]. As the police heard this version of Sollecito’s, who basically, Sollecito ... with that statement, also this approach by him in practice more or less had become part of the process too, as Sollecito made this statement, the police became suspicious.
That is: why did Sollecito tell us this, and why is he now telling us that Amanda was not home with him? So then they called Amanda, and Amanda was heard by the police as a person not under investigation, thus with no defense attorney, because the person”¦ the witness, the person informed of the facts during the investigation ““ is not called a witness, he is called a person informed of the facts - she was heard by the police who pointed out to her, they confronted her with this question: why is Raffaele saying something else? Now you say you were with him and Raffaele says you were not there, that he was at home and you were not there? This is the point.
58’44’’ So she did, she was heard in a way, let’s say for long enough, I cannot remember for how long, in the earliest morning hours of November 6, 2007. I was not there when Amanda was interviewed by the police. I was, perhaps I was coming, because I had been called by the director of the flying squad that night. I do not remember what time I arrived at the flying squad, but I think that”¦ I think I got there, maybe I arrived when Amanda’s questioning had already started. But the flying squad is pretty big; I was not in the room where Amanda was being questioned, but rather in the office of the director of the flying squad. We were talking about the investigation and were trying to plan the investigation for the coming days. So now, at some point, they call me, if I remember correctly, they inform me that Amanda had given the name of Lumumba, she had basically confessed that she was at the crime scene in the company of, with Lumumba, whom she had let into the house, that is it. Now I go on, I wanted to explain how I operate. So it’s not me, I did not do the questioning.
Further posts of the CNN interview which then moved on to later events can be read here and here. There is another significant interview here.
As Netflix “forgot” to tell you what actually happened at Knox’s session ending at 1:45 am which Knox lied about see here.
And as Netflix “forgot” to tell you what actually happened at Knox’s session ending at 5:45 am which Knox lied about see here.
Put this long-form interview about the first few days up against what you may have seen on Netflix, and tell us if the impression gained is the same, or like night and day?
Posted by Our Main Posters on 09/20/17 at 04:59 AM in Various hypotheses, Prosecution views, The officially involved, The prosecutors, Evidence & Witnesses, Real crimescene, The pack attack
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
Netflix lied to you by omission about this: Knox was the very rare one in a hundred foreign students in Perugia who arrived without any financial and supervisory support from her home college.
Netflix lied to you by omission about this: She had limited money, and no supervisor. She had no prospect of getting any credits toward her Seattle degree because the language school she was enrolled in did not count toward degrees - though her book says she sold her entire trip to Europe to her parents on the basis that it would.
Maybe the first of her own many, many lies.
Netflix lied to you by omission about this: She had no work permit for Italy and was putting Patrick’s license at risk working at his bar - as Meredith would not have done, being European. She was also pretty deeply into drugs, and possibly on a bad high from Meredith’s death through to Knox’s arrest.
Netflix lied to you by omission about this: Knox was dirty and obnoxious around the house. The two Italian girls were hoping she would move out. By the time of her death, Meredith was in fact just about Knox’s ONLY friend.
But Mignini knew all of this. Was he looking at a loose cannon in way over her head? He thought so with a certain sympathy, and tried to give her two favors that he did not have to give.
He did not raise the damning matter of the drugs at trial (though RS lawyer Maori did); and he allowed her the extended December 2007 interview - where she could in fact have talked her way free if there was no guilt, or a lesser sentence if she owned up to all of the above.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_14_third/
By early 2008 the Knox PR campaign (Preston and Heavey) and her defense were already blasting Mignini publicly and especially in Knox’s eyes, as her book again describes, to avoid Knox confessing or requesting any break. She was pushed from trusting into hostile mode.
Netflix implied that Knox was the victim of rabid media - but check out the vastly more extensive media defamation of Mignini, sparked once again by Netflix’s biased and dishonest film.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/21/17 at 01:38 PM | #
It wasnt surprising that Mignini assessed Knox the way he did.
The mafia tool Netflix lied to you by omission about this, though just about everybody in Italy knew:
Another thing Netflix didnt tell you is that this kind of crime happens in Italy every year or two.
Since Meredith’s death, there have been other weird murders by American students, for example in Florence, Rome and south of Genoa.
Another thing Netflix didnt tell you was that Knox was monitored uniquely and at great cost by the American Embassy in Rome and an Italian MP and neither they nor Knox’s lawyers ever saw or reported anything wrong (kiss of doom for her ECHR appeal).
Another thing Netflix didnt tell you is that in 2008 Knox’s lawyers were reduced to PUBLICLY requesting that Knox stop telling lies as it wasnt helping her case.
Another thing Netflix didnt tell you was this.
The list grows and grows. In fact, did Netflix tell ANY real truths?
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/21/17 at 11:00 PM | #
This was of course CNN’s interview. Though Dr Mignini maybe didnt know it, among American TV outlets, most biased anti-Italy were CNN and CBS, and we posted a lot on this.
CBS http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C869/
CNN http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C876/
Agreed CNN did also have Nancy Grace and Paul Callan and Wendy Murphy and Lisa Bloom arguing pro-guilt based on the evidence. But their interventions were minor compared to hours-long shows like Drew Griffin’s, Anderson Cooper’s, Jane Velez-Mitchell’s, and Larry King’s, and and all of them (like Netflix) was heavily under the sway of the Knox PR.
Griffin clearly had done almost no homework, and seemed to know nothing at all of the 2007-08 judicial oversight by Judge Matteini etc though it is very well documented.
Nor did Griffin seem to have any idea just how much evidence there was, or how strongly this came across at trial with the defense teams largely deer in the headlights.
Right after the interview was aired the Machine posted this advice on questions CNN should have asked.
And prior to Skep’s posting James Raper posted this advice on hard facts Drew Griffin should have known.
Maybe those got to the right people in CNN? They did not show such extreme bias again subsequently.
See also this by James Raper on the same subject - odd behavior - as Dr Mignini addresses in Part 1 of the interview.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/22/17 at 01:36 PM | #
There is a saying that “if there is a wrong in the world that goes unpunished then the world is out of balance”
Of course there are many many instances where this is true and the world is indeed out of balance and liable to remain so. However it is almost Halloween and ten years have passed since Amanda Knox tortured raped and murdered Meredith Kercher and so I have to wonder why it is that nobody has ever taken matters into their own hands and exacted revenge.
Yes. I understand that there are many forms of revenge but the killing of Meredith Kercher is particular horrendous because Knox has profited financially from her murdering spree of ten years ago. Her sick and twisted family have manipulated American public opinion away from the proven facts of this case. not only that but they have vilified the family of meredith Kercher and celebrated in her death and so Knox, at least for now, goes free.
Let me say that it is my fervent wish that the same thing would happen to Knox as her actions against Meredith Kercher. It is also my fervent wish that her family gets a virulent and aggressive form of cancer. That would be one way of exacting revenge. The point is that Meredith Kercher will not be forgotten and the scales of justice will be balanced one way or the other.
Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/24/17 at 04:15 AM | #
I reluctantly watched the Netflix again.
At 31 minutes there’s a good example of guilty and innocent body language:
coming out of the police station, Lumumba holds his head up and doesn’t hide himself.
Guilty Sollecito completely covers his head and guilty Knox is wearing a cap and has her head lowered.
Also, (with 37 mins remaining), the knowing, conspiratorial wink from Knox to Sollecito in the courtroom. The truth is surely under there.
And the complete absence of any sympathy for Meredith is shocking.
Posted by DavidB on 09/24/17 at 11:52 AM | #
From http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?p=131124#p131124
Newsweek: “In the period between the second conviction and conclusive acquittal, Knox approached the filmmakers about making a documentary.”
Posted by Ergon on 09/25/17 at 06:50 AM | #
By Pataz1: “Producer Stephen Morse charged the Kercher family with being driven by money”.
https://aklwei.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/disgusting-amandaknox-producer-stephen-morse-kerchers/
Posted by Ergon on 09/25/17 at 06:56 AM | #
Given that he was somewhat smitten with Madison Paxton and credited her and Knox family friend Joe Starr in the movie, can see where he got those toxic opinions.
Posted by Ergon on 09/25/17 at 06:57 AM | #
Hi Ergon
Thanks for the links. Stephen Morse tried to sustain the fake shrinking-violet Knox that comes across strongly in her book.
Once that act is blown in enough eyes though, it stays blown. It can’t be wound back. Italians saw Knox blow that shrinking-violet act at least twice.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/multiple_ways_in_which_amanda_knoxs_email/
Stephen Morse did various interviews spinning the Netflix film. They seem to have stopped pretty abruptly a few months ago - why?
He made the film for money of course, and presumably the Knox PR paid for him as it did for Nina Burleigh to allow him to be in Perugia so much.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/25/17 at 04:10 PM | #
Mignini reminded Drew Griffin that he (Mignini) was not the chief prosecutor but only a deputy prosecutor, and that he brought in Manuela Comodi to aid and assist him especially with the DNA evidence.
He also reminds Griffin that he was randomly assigned the Kercher case, thus eliminating any personal interest in it or prior feeling or vendetta against Knox. Mignini’s assignment to the case was sheer random coincidence.
Mignini also clarifies for Drew Griffin that his office also has the task of finding facts in FAVOR of the suspect during an investigation. The aim is to find the truth, whatever the truth is or whoever it points to. He by no means targeted an innocent student out of convenience.
Mignini reminds Griffin that Knox and Sollecito spewed endless contradictions and inconsistencies, the most blatant of which was Knox’s accusation that her own boss had killed Meredith while Knox shuddered in the kitchen and covered her ears in horror at the sound. Later she said she was at her boyfriend’s apartment all evening, which he at first denied. Raffaele later changed his story to agree with her, that they had been together all night in his home.
Soon the lie was put to their little fairy tale by an honest homeless man who had seen them out in the street hovering in anxious discussion only a few meters from the murder house, on the same night as the crime. Thank you, Toto, may you rest in peace, you self-proclaimed Christian anarchist. So much for these two liars.
Mignini explains to Griffin that a “Rudy only” crime doesn’t work.
Multiple killers were involved as proven by the two ear witnesses. One woman neighbor near the cottage heard Meredith’s screams between 11:30 pm and midnight. She also heard different sets of feet, some running up the metal stairs and some running on the ground in front of the cottage, but it had to be more than one person because they were running in separate directions. This was not a Guede-only crime.
Mignini relates how the forensic evidence of footprints in blood on the hall floor of cottage, on the blue rug showing Sollecito’s foot, his DNA on the bra clasp, Knox’s blood mixed with Meredith’s on the tap of the bathroom sink, and cell phone records began to paint a picture of Knox and Sollecito’s presence at the cottage during the murder, despite their lies to the contrary.
Raffaele’s changing story of his whereabouts and his separating himself from Knox for hours on the night of the killing, then altering that story to agree with hers, intensified their suspicions of the two friends.
Rudy himself although vague about Raffaele’s presence at the murder, said clearly that Knox was at the scene.
Mignini told Griffin that Knox always fell into “profound shock” every time she had to tell what had happened that night.
(That’s curious. Why would an innocent person fall into such shock when asked to relate a quiet evening at home with one’s boyfriend? What would be so hard to discuss about spending one’s time in love and happy and doing relatively innocent, irrelevant activities on a quiet night of togetherness?)
Yet Knox fell into a profound shock reaction whenever she was questioned about the evening of November 1st, 2007.
And as time proved later her shock was not due to any overwhelming love of Meredith Kercher or grief at her suffering. Knox barely mentioned her in months and years to come, except in the most antiseptic or canned way, saying the minimum of what might be expected from an innocent but she was not much sincere about Meredith.
Mignini tells Griffin it was obviously a sex crime indicated by the partly nude body in its floor position, covered by a blanket (and later forensic findings of Guede).
Mignini emphasized that the simulated burglary was the glaring clue that the criminal wanted to throw suspicion onto a stranger not an occupant. The false burglary was also as a cover for the main motive of the crime which was to offend and attack this single individual woman, this Miss Kercher.
The faked burglary was to suggest someone entered the house not bent on insult but on everyday robbery. The broken window and the oversize stone to suggest the burglar broke and then crawled through the window was a ruse. So the killer had entered through the door, and the door showed no signs of forced entry.
Mignini educates Griffin on Meredith’s never having occasion to touch the knife, not ever.
Yet that knife found by a clean gloved hand by investigator Finzi was sent to Rome’s highest scientific police lab for anaylsis. Then it showed Meredith’s genetic profile was on the blade.
How could this happen? Mignini queries Griffin. Meredith Kercher had never touched the knife in her lifetime.
Also, Amanda’s genetic profile was on the same knife.
The only explanation was that this knife was the murder weapon which was used to cut Meredith’s throat. There was no contamination of this knife by faulty handlers. Clean gloves were used, the knife secured in a box for transport.
Mignini said, “I have the utmost confidence in the scientific police, especially Dr. Stefanoni who acted with great professionalism. The defense consultants had no objections.”
Mignini said that Laura Mezetti and one of the guys from the Marche region who lived downstairs, had BOTH seen a scratch on Amanda’s neck after the murder. It was not highly visible, but it was a scratch.
Mignini said that on the evening of November 5th Sollecito made a statement to police that, ” ‘I was at home. Amanda was not’.”
The police immediately questioned Amanda about Sollecito’s statement, asking her for an explanation of it as a person informed of the facts, but not yet as a suspect. She had accompanied Sollecito to the flying squad headquarters that evening of her own free will, not by appointment.
Mignini was in the same building at that time but not in the same room where AK was being questioned about Sollecito’s bombshell statement. Rather Mignini was in the office of the director of the flying squad. They were discussing the investigation of Kercher’s murder and making plans for the days ahead.
At some point Mignini was called and told that Amanda had confessed to being at the crime scene and had in the same breath accused her boss, Lumumba, of being there with her, that she had let him into the cottage and that he had killed Meredith while Knox hovered in the kitchen terrified, covering her ears to avoid the sound. This statement by Knox was made on November 5th, four days after the murder which occurred almost at midnight of November 1st.
So, Mr. Griffin—wouldn’t you be a bit suspicious of Knox if you heard her say this? Especially as it was a radical departure from her first claim of being elsewhere and even her earlier words of faux indignation about those *&^#$%*! who killed Meredith spoken in the waiting area of the police station while she canoodled on lap of lover?
@Grahame Rhodes: thanks for reminder of upcoming Halloween as we face 10th year since the Perugia tragedy. I can’t believe Knox has had a happy life since, for all her posturing. She is living a lie and leaning on a spider’s web. Things will fall of their own weight, make no mistake that justice will overtake the guilty, it’s sure as gravity. The wrongdoer will fall into the trap he sets for another.
Posted by Hopeful on 09/26/17 at 06:26 PM | #
Thanks Hopeful. Really admired your 12:26 PM Comment.
Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/26/17 at 11:29 PM | #
Hi Hopeful,
Sollecito never claimed Amanda Knox was at his apartment on the night of the murder at the trial or the appeal.
Posted by The Machine on 09/27/17 at 10:56 PM | #
Amusing the extent to which Hopeful manages to really damn CNN’s “investigative reporter” Drew Griffin here. He didnt absorb any of that?! Even through an interpreter, who seems to have struggled with the English?
Griffin did not attend trial. He was so addled, especially by Doug Preston (who is increasingly being proved wrong) and by Candace Dempsey, who posted an interview with him ridiculing Mignini. We can tell he never read the transcripts from trial (which back up Dr Mignini only “more so”), we were far from done with translating them and CNN spent NO money on translations at all.
These “investigative reporters” like Drew Griffin and Linda Byron and John Douglas and Paul Ciolino often got it wrong; but several others like the NBC Dateline team came through.
I do give Griffin one ounce of credit, for the fact that he allowed Dr Mignini to answer in full. But the report CNN actually aired was diishonest on the same lines as Netflix. It left anything out that made the Italians look good.
Here’s an exchange from Skep’s Post 3 that the Machine has quoted in several of his posts - one of the zombie claims that is still made again and again - that did not make it into what CNN aired.
1’03†CNN: You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?
1’08†Mignini: I have never said that. I have never understood who has and continues to say that. I read, there was a reporter, – I don’t know his name, I mention it because I noticed it, – who continues to repeat this claim that, perhaps, knowing full well that it’s not like that. I have never said that there might have been a satanic rite. I’ve never said it, so I would like to know who made it up. This is a conspiracy, a fantasy, to my detriment though, to my detriment. Simply a sexual act. And maybe I have always said, I maintained this in the first-instance trial, there was a relationship which deteriorated between the two girls. I’ve always maintained that. I’ll tell you this because…
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/28/17 at 04:16 AM | #
Re Machine: “Sollecito never claimed Amanda Knox was at his apartment on the night of the murder at the trial or the appeal.”
Yes, true. Netflix omitted to tell us this but Sollecito was almost consistently hostile to Knox from 5-6 November 2007 to after the Hellman appeal 4 years later, and also mostly beyond.
Odd behavior for two innocent lovebirds, dont you think?
After Hellman late 2011, Sollecito raced to Seattle (with his concerned family hotfooting it after him) to see if they could patch things up and get married. She was then so far as we know still the only girl he had ever slept with.
His book’s title “Honor Bound” was craven and totally untrue. It was formulated (possibly by Gumbel) when Sollecito was trying to get married to Knox - and getting rebuffed.
Both have periodically been pretty hostile to one another ever since. Two of many examples here:
Odd behavior for two innocent lovebirds, dont you think?! Follow that second link and you’ll see that on that occasion Sollecito sunk Knox as follows:
“From around the hours of 20:30/21:00 I was home - said the accused - and I did not go out to Via della Pergola with Amanda when she went back. I stayed behind sleeping…. that night I smoked a very small amount present in my drawer.” This would justify the sketchy memories in relation to those hours. Raffaele Sollecito does not remember when Amanda came back to the apartment but he is certain, “Amanda did sleep at my placeâ€.
Netflix told us that of course… oh no, they didn’t.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/28/17 at 04:45 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Correcting Netflix 22 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #1
Or to previous entry Correcting Netflix 20 Omitted The Vital Context Of 200,000 In The US Wrongly Locked Up #3