Saturday, December 17, 2022

My Contexting Of Dr Giuliano Mignini’s Spectacularly Eye-Opening Book

Posted by KrissyG

1. Advent Of The Book

Italy finally gets to see the Italian version of this highly anticipated book, by one of the two trial prosecutors, Dr Guiliano Mignini, on the Meredith Kercher Murder case.

He can finally write much more freely, if not yet entirely, as he now works at the national level with official bodies unrelated to the case. The English-language edition might spell out details much more, as Italians had the advantages of watching most court sessions on TV and of reading key documents as soon as uploaded. 

The book reads almost like a novel, insofar as characters are rounded out by a few descriptive brush strokes, though without losing the clear logic and precision of the dry codified Italian Penal Code and procedural protocols.

2. Trial Persona, Observed

Mignini’s fine observational skills become apparent from page 1, in his natural ability to appraise everyone he meets at a glance, whether by accent, appearance, ethnicity, or even from which part of the world or specific region of Italy they are from.

Meredith Kercher is described thus.

The girl had dark hair and complexion, while her eyes were of medium intensity hazelnut. […] It was understood that she had “exotic” and extra-European blood in her veins, while there was an Anglo-Saxon origin of the other of her parents. It was as if that maiden expressed the great wealth and linguistic ethnic diversity of the British Commonwealth. p34

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are described thus.

[…] typically Anglo-Saxon face, with very light skin, with eyes of an intense blue color and reddish blond hair, not very tall, dressed in a blue vest with fur liner inside and jeans, and a normo-type boy, with light hair and eyes, with a pair of goggles, a showy yellow scarf at the neck on a blue pullover and jeans. p26

Rudy Guede’s judge Micheli is described thus.

The magistrate was the well-known Paolo Micheli, whom I would have dubbed “Zaratustra”, younger than me of some years, of “Sabina” origin, in particular, a creature surrounded by a halo of fame and respectability, among lawyers in particular. p116

Guilia Bongiorno, Sollecito’s counsel, is described thus:

...a brilliant lawyer from the “copana” school.

Carlo Dalla Vedova, Knox’s counsel, is described thus.

...who was very close to the U.S. Embassy and would easily be mistaken for an American because of his appearance, resembling that of a U.S. Army officer. p119

Dr. Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, 2011 Court of Appeal, is described thus.

The surname Hellmann, added to Pratillo, denoted German ties which I would not know […] well-known in Spoleto but not in Perugia and coming from the [court’s] business welfare section. p 183

For something on Hellman’s background please see my footnote.

3. Media Persona, Observed

A key section of the book describes the various journalists surrounding the courts in person, including:

There, I met envoys from various news agencies and television broadcasters, especially American ones, such as “CBS”, “ABC”, “NBC”, “Associated Press” and “CNN” or other media outlets, such as Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt, Ann Wise, Sabina Castelfranco, Phoebe Nathanson and others. I also remember the Britons, Tom Kington of “The Guardian,” Nick Squires of “The Telegraph,” Nick Pisa of “Sky News”, John Follain of “The [London] Times” as well as a very nice old journalist, Richard Owen of “The [London] Times.” p124 on Massei Court.

Dr Mignini early on in the case sees very clear factions, differentiating the largely hostile US press, often depicted as purveying disinformation, although some, such as Barbie Nadeau, Peggy Ganong and Andrea Vogt are perceived as truer to their profession. 

Throughout the book, Mignini conveys an exasperated sense of frustration at some of the ‘reporters’ identifying as pro-Amanda Knox advocates, and these come across as stock comedy figures.

There is the hapless Doug Preston, who is one of the most vicious of the protagonists in his attacks on the prosecutor.  Mignini clearly and patiently explains how Preston completely misunderstands Italian Criminal law, mistaking it for US-style adversarial, and thus not realizing that a lawyer was not required to be present at the stage he was interviewed by Mignini in the Monster of Florence case.  Preston is mentioned here because he is key in initiating the destructive campaign against Mignini from the USA.

There is a large gaggle of these trouble-making characters. Example here:

Among these journalists, there was a strange character, completely uninformed in procedural matters, but who managed to credit himself as a kind of freelancer, self-styled as “persecuted” by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and in particular by me.

Frank Sfarzo (pseudonym of Francesco Sforza) was an individual with dark and thin hair, almost Maghrebi-looking, who lived with his mother and also it seems to me with his sister, with whom he was anything but on good terms, in an apartment of Via Fonti Coverte.

I do not know what he did in life, probably nothing until he was “electrocuted” on the “way to Damascus” by Amanda Knox whose innocence he “wedded with” immediately and tenaciously, without knowing anything about the trial. p127

Another, more concerning figure is the formerly friendly investigative journalist Bob Graham, turned Friend of Knox, who late in trial in 2009 wrote an especially misleading report in the UK Daily Express.

As with any evolving plot, Mignini becomes aware of a key turning point in the Hellmann Appeal, when his suspicions of collaboration by Vecchiotti and Conti with the defence are confirmed.  He and Manuela Comodi were joint trial co-prosecutors, and it is with grim amusement that Mignini relates how the Americans refer to himself as ‘Chief Prosecutor’ and Comodi as some kind of assistant.

Vecchiotti really annoys him in the Hellmann appeal by insisting on referring to Comodi as ‘Lawyer’ instead of ‘Prosecutor’.  Mignini points out that, contrary to US belief there were altogether four prosecutors in the case, himself and Comodi (2009), Giancarlo Costagliola (2011) and Crini (2013-14). Plus assigned judges in 2013 and 2015 at Cassation.

The other main troublesome characters are swathes of US armchair scientists, DNA experts, and lawyers, who see themselves as Knox’s proxy US attorneys, conducting her defence from afar. 

It seems to me that that period was the turn of a fat and somewhat ridiculous character who presented himself as a great investigator and demanded to give lessons to all the Italian investigators.

But also there were the more skilled who acted either as private jurists of the Knox family in the parallel fiction trial or who acted in a “reserved” way in the service of the “pro Amanda” lobby: the lawyer Theodore Simon, the geneticist Bruce Budowle, director of the Institute of Genetic Investigations, who among other things authored a letter addressed to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, at the request of the lawyers Ted Simon, Carlo Dalla Vedova, and Carla Del Grosso, in which he challenged the validity of the scientific analysis, while technically lacking the credentials to be a Knox consultant in the judicial process.

Another was Greg Hampikian, professor of genetics at the Boise State University in Idaho […] For all these characters, who felt free to teach the Italian Scientific Police some lessons, the official work especially on DNA carried out by investigators was kind of shameful, and this judgment would be reflected by the [2011 appeal] “independent” experts, as the Americans called them. p 151

Again, few made even the slightest effort to grasp Italian law and legal processes, and several materially contributed to the Hellman verdict’s annulment. 

Courthouses: 2008 hard right, 2009 and 2011 top of hill

4. The Judicial Narrative 2007-15

The book is written in logical chronological order, commencing with Mignini who was on duty then being called in to investigate the murder of the young British student, Meredith Kercher.

As he arrives at the house, he takes in everything of the scene, noting that the window to Filomena Romanelli’s room (which is broken) showed no signs of scuff marks on the wall under the window, its aspect towards a busy road and its sheer height, whilst musing that there is nothing wrong with using circumstantial evidence.  One doesn’t need to wait weeks for a sample to be tested.

He describes how an unfortunate press conference by the then chief of the Perugia police, after he had arranged the arrest of Sollecito, Knox and Lumumba as of 6 Nov 2007, was to become a portent of the final Supreme Court Fifth Chambers’ erroneous reasoning to come, some seven-plus years later.

...the attribution to me of the unexpected and startling words of Perugia Police Chief Arturo De Felice, who on the morning of 6 November 2007, that of the arrest, said that the case had been resolved with unparalleled speed.

This attracted heated criticisms of myself and of officers of the Mobile Police. This was one of the foundation lies of the Friends Of Amanda lobby, and in particular of the self-proclaimed “insightful” (former) FBI agent Moore and his unruly wife Michelle, who repeated them over and over again. p274

De Felice was technically mistaken, and was not even a member of the judicial team. And yet the Marasca/Bruno Supreme Court Chamber used his announcement as an example of an error in our own investigation.

With respect to Knox’s arrest, Mignini explains and proves that neither the police nor he himself suggested the name ‘Lumumba’ or ‘Patrick’ to Knox.

This also later becomes an error repeated in the 2011 Hellmann Appeal Court and 2015 Marasca/Bruno Supreme Court, when they fail to add the ‘aggravated’ part onto the calunnia conviction wording, on the grounds that there was no link between Lumumba and Kercher (which there clearly was).

In the book’s later section dealing with the ECHR Knox judgment, Mignini with flawless logic shows that it is erroneous to claim or rule that under Italian law Knox needed a lawyer, as it was an act not of self-incrimination but one of accusing a third party (Lumumba).

He shows quite elegantly by way of court transcripts that, contrary to common Friends of Amanda beliefs, nobody suggested the name Lumumba to Knox.

Mignini takes us chapter by chapter through the 2009 Massei Trial Court (see one of the next posts), and then through the 2011 Hellmann Appeal Court.

Here he has a lot to say about outside interference and something decidedly fishy going on. Right at the start, Mignini realises the two main judges are duds.  Zanetti is described as a contrary character. Again a harbinger of things to come, and in hindsight, he avidly wishes he had demanded a recuse.

In the third line of the report, Dr. Zanetti [Hellman’s #2] wrongly claims [because this was an appeal court]: “it is necessary to start from the only objective and really certain and undisputed fact: on 2.11.2007, shortly after 13.00,  the body of the English student Meredith Kercher… was found in the building of Via della Pergola 7, in Perugia”.

This claim [by an appeal court] is incredible and denotes the inexperience of the magistrate in criminal matters.

I still seem to experience all over again when I listened scandalized to this clumsy expression that should have deserved immediate recusal, of Zanetti, and also of President Pratillo Hellman, who had allowed such a claim, because he could not fail to know the expression was an overreach transgression.

But the decision to recuse wasn’t taken by our colleague Costagliola, who was from the Prosecutor General’s Office, while we were at appeal. p 183

Mignini explains clearly and concisely the proceedings and the errors found in Hellman’s annulled ruling by the 2013 Supreme Court First Chambers – and directly links to those same errors repeated again in the 2015 Fifth Chambers Marasca/Bruno report.

For example piecemeal treatment of evidence, which leads to Curatalo’s fine testimony being excluded by them despite proof that party buses were indeed running on Thursday night 2nd Nov 2007. Thus belying the concept of “quae singula non probant simul unitant probant” as Mignini puts it. 

The 2013 Chieffi Supreme Court, and Nencini’s 2014 Appeal Court in Florence to which they referred back down the appeal, is dealt with in rather less detail than that found in earlier chapters, possibly because the prosecutor dealing with it is now Alessandro Crini, and all seems to go well and as expected.

However, disaster had already struck at the end of the 2011 Hellmann Appeal Court, for Hellman had erroneously freed the two defendants, and Knox had fled Italy to the USA, never soon to return.

We are then moved onto the final 2015 Marasca Supreme Court appeal, dealt with in detail. There is hard language about the American administration and its interference at this point which will reverberate both in the Italian media and in judicial circles in Rome. 

There are so many errors made, unusual logic, and a bizarre reversion back to the largely expunged 2011 Hellmann appeal.  This is quite detailed, so I will include the major points in a separate review.

Mignini goes into quite a lot of detail as to why the Marasca-Bruno report is an illegal curve ball, explaining with his usual clear logic why it is, and this is a chapter that will likely most interest the legally-minded as to the reasoning behind the overturned guilty verdict.

The book ends with chapters on the Knox appeal to ECHR, long before the Italians process was done, and the highly misleading Netflix production “Amanda Knox” in which Mignini is cast (and later ridiculed by the American Friends Of Amanda) as seeing himself as Sherlock Holmes, not revealing the Netflix producers from Knox PR had specifically asked him a question – not seen by viewers - about his preferences in sleuths.

5. The Book’s Final Overview

All in all, Mignini has no doubts at all about the original guilty verdict.  There is a whole chapter devoted to what Mignini thinks happened on the night of the murder, which I will not spoil here (you need to read the book!).

In closing, Mignini has the following remarks to make about the three ex-defendants:

Three suspects were in due course found: the Ivorian Rudi Hermann Guede, the Apulian Raffaele Sollecito, and the American from Seattle, Amanda Knox.

Rudi has never shown signs of influencing the judicial process in any way and has always respected Italian jurisdiction over the matter.

Sollecito was and is, in my opinion, the most enigmatic, indecipherable character of the three and who had suffered most in his life, especially for the death of his mother.[…]

[Key about] the girl from Seattle is that she was and is actually a normal girl of the far west American, very extroverted and extremely curious, this is a very important aspect of her, very open to the dialogue, but also extremely narcissistic, and very firm in her own convictions which, however, she tends to simplify, often excessively. p 311

The family circles and the rivalries of Sollecito and Knox, well-known in Italy, are not a main focus of this edition. 

In all, a logically set out, easy to read, flowing and relatable account, albeit slightly repetitive in parts, of a now retired, successful prosecutor disappointed by the failure to achieve justice for Meredith Kercher’s family thanks to the nefarious interference of outside forces, of shady characters with little understanding of how Italian criminal law works.

A recurring theme is Mignini’s astonishment at the utter ignorance of too many American writers, especially Nina Burleigh, and more recently Jessica Bennett of the NY Times, with their near-childish belief in the ‘bad prosecutor’ versus the innocent-because-I-can-sense-it Knox supporters.

In the context of the article, the journalist Jessica Bennett argued that, during the trial, I had presented Amanda as a “sex demon” who wanted to take revenge on her roommate and that I had charged her only because the blanket that had been placed on Meredith’s corpse must have been laid by a woman and this woman should have been her.

I am appalled, once again, by the proverbial ease and superficiality of certain Americans, in particular Bennett, who is the author of this report for which condemnation is deserved. p306

6. For Now An Interim Take

As you can see, this book helps clear up issues that have puzzled many for years. More contexting is still to come.

The book ends with an intriguing revelation that Knox had requested to meet him in person, and after all of the vilification Mignini has been put through by her and her supporters as the ‘wicked prosecutor’ he has clear reservations about this.  For the moment, they kept in touch via WhatsApp.

*[author’s note: [Hellmann is from Padua. In Veneto. The name Hellmann comes from the name that the illustrious Venetian lady (the widow of Renier) acquired from his second husband, who was an officer of the Austrian army (at the time Venice was part of the Austrian Empire). The officer, Mr. Hellmann, had a status significantly lower in prestige than the noble Mr. Renier and his wife, therefore the really “important” person was the Lady, who is also remembered for having donated an art collection to the city]

Posted by KrissyG on 12/17/22 at 12:00 AM in Hoaxes Sollecito etc


A fascinating vignette of what Mignini was up against is his account of receiving a letter from Judge Michael Heavey from the Washington Supreme Court. I had long thought that Heavey’s intervention was simply a plea for Knox to receive a fair trial and for it to take place outside of Perugia. But, according to Mignini, it went further.

“This illustrious overseas judge was sure of Amanda’s innocence and tried to convince me to help her. [He] added, in support of his assertions, biblical quotations which seemed totally out of place…... assured me that I would acquire great merits to the Americans and to the whole world if I had worked to get Amanda acquitted….. but “woe to me” if I had not accepted the invitation.”

The letter ended with a blessing and a recommendation that the content be kept confidential, though the letter had also in fact been sent to other Italian judicial officials.

Absolutely astonishing!

Posted by James Raper on 12/17/22 at 04:33 AM | #

Mignini should not be as disappointed as he professes to be with the ECHR result.  Knox was hoping to get her calunnia conviction criticised, and preferably overturned, or a ruling to that effect, but this is not what happened.

The calunnia conviction, per se, was not criticised. What happened was that a couple of specific aspects of the proceedings in which the calunnia occurred were criticised by the ECHR, determined in accordance with the terms of the Articles on Human Rights.

One of those criticisms, regarding the interpreter, was patently nonsense, but the other, as to the absence of a lawyer when Knox was interviewed, actually fell in line with the decision of the Italian Supreme Court (Gemelli). The ISC ruled that Knox should have been treated as a suspect (and thus was required to have a lawyer with her). I think this fact irks Mignini but the ISC decision is not one I would disagree with, even if I do get why the police interviewed Knox without a lawyer.

Now the presence of a lawyer might, or might not, have made a difference (on a practical level, rather than a legal one) to what happened next, but that is not something that the ECHR, nor indeed any court, could adjudicate on, or be used to excuse the calunnia. Overturning the conviction on a hypothesis arising from a legal technicality that is related to the investigation of the substantive, and already committed, crime but unrelated to an offence yet to be committed, i.e accusing, effectively as a witness, an uninvolved person of murder, would be ridiculous.

Certainly Knox could not have already been a suspect for the calunnia.

But just to take the argument on a bit further, even if a lawyer who had been present were to advise his client not to sign any statements in affirmation of what she had said, there were other witnesses present. Also the fact that the lawyer would not be willing to testify, would speak volumes. In the event, no witness testimony was needed as Knox admitted what had happened and the ISC ruled that the statements were admissable as regards the calunnia only.

Posted by James Raper on 12/18/22 at 05:32 AM | #

James talks about the ECHR “appeal” on which we have already had a dozen posts (do a search by title) with several more on 2018-22 to come.

No wonder Dr Mignini was ticked. That advisory court sure can get things wrong. Partly poor systems, and partly extreme overload - Italian defense lawyers are a big cause of that, they reflexively send “appeals” to Strasbourg as a kind of gun at the head of Italian appeal courts.

Most are nonsense, intended only to result in ECHR recommending a big financial award, which the lawyers then grab.

Exactly the case here: Della Vedova filed the extremely dishonest case (co-lawyer Ghirga would not sign it), but did not share it with the Ministry of Justice in Rome or the Perugia team. So for years they were flying blind.

He filed it years before the Italian process had played out; the ECHR’s own rules say it must not receive appeals filed before that point. 

Dalla Vedova asked for just short of E1 million as an award. Nothing else. There was no request to revisit or overturn any judgment, as the Rome Ministry and the Perugia prosecutors were astonished to eventually find out.

Knox was in Seattle the whole time.  She did not sign the submission. Did she even know about it in fact? If yes then WHY DID SHE NOT INSIST ON A DEMAND THAT THE CALUNNIA JUDGMENT BE OVERTURNED?!

The Rome Ministry paid the very small suggested award to Knox without checking first with Perugia; dumb administrative move.

The ECHR “research” for its “findings” drew heavily on (1) Dalla Vedova’s nonsense and (2) Boninsegna’s nonsense - Boninsegna was the bent judge in Florence for Knox’s calunnia trial #2 and he was taking it out on the Ministry for transferring him away from his mafia chums.

James mentions the Gemelli Cassation judges panel report of April 2008. Its listing of evidence was really damning to Knox, and survived intact through the 2013-14 Nencini court. You can read the whole translation by Catnip here.

Read the sections in bold. Hardly a big win for Knox. In fact, pretty routine that a statement which she herself initiated and signed, no statement from her was required,  was disallowed for her main trial.

Gemelli was really only making what became the Massei and Nencini verdicts safer from appeal. There was no rap over the knuckles for the interrogation team there. Sorry, Friends Of Amanda, you lose.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/18/22 at 05:37 PM | #

On the subject of Boninsegna, Knox was acquitted by the judge on the basis of his findings that there was reasonable doubt as to the prosecution witnesses’ version of events at the Questura and that, in any event, the case was not proven.

This was, of course, a criminal trial and the burden of proof rested with the prosecution. There was, of course, no reasonable doubt that she had made the claim for which she was being prosecuted.

His findings are not convincingly supported by what we find in his Motivation. There, he relied heavily on –

1. Amanda Knox’s emotive version of events, with barely a mention of the prosecution witnesses’ testimony contradicting that version, let alone give any reasons to doubt the integrity of those witnesses. The triable crux of the case was, of course, whether or not she had been hit and abused, as she claimed. However, whether she was, or was not, was not even evaluated as a matter of objective fact. The test he applied was entirely subjective and related to Knox’s mental state. Knox thought she had been and that was not considered as being unreasonable in her circumstances (being confused, scared, exhausted etc). Of course what she thought had happened, is relevant, as it goes to intent (mena rea) but if the act of which she complains was not credible on the basis of the witness testimony (indeed disproved – there being no test other than the balance of probabilities to apply to it i.e Knox in her (apparently) confused state versus the other witnesses present) then that largely debunks what it was credible for her to believe had happened, whatever her circumstances. In my submission it would take a considerable amount of bias to overlook this difficulty and deal with the issue in the way which he did (which was to apply a test he was not prepared to critically evaluate and justify). Perhaps the basis for the bias was a feeling that it was unfair for everyone to pile in on Knox like this. I am not unsympathetic to that point of view, but sympathy is not the issue here.

2. Quotations to support his verdict from Judge Hellmann’s Motivation which, one should remember, had been annulled by the Supreme Court.

3. The Supreme Court ruling that she was already a suspect before the questioning started. I can just about accept that it would follow from that ruling that there should have been no questioning, as occurred, which, according to Italian law, would require –  be it she was not under arrest – a formal interview with the witness, or rather, suspect, with lawyers present, whether or not she said she required one.
However this would appear to be out of step with her definitive conviction for calunnia (defamation of Patrick Lumumba) save that Knox repeated her claims about Lumumba in her Memorial when she was not in fact being questioned. On the other hand her allegations against the police (being hit) first arose in her Memorial as well, and were repeated in her trial testimony. However, the allegations about mistreatment could hardly have arisen in the first place with a lawyer present.

Knox, it is to be noted, has also repeated the same claims about her interrogation in her book.

Leaving aside the underlying absurdities in points 1 and 2 above, it might be that one could argue (Boninsegna did not specifically do so - though this would arguably be the only rational basis for his judgement) that the lack of a lawyer granted Knox immunity from prosecution.

The Memorial is close enough in time for it to receive some benefit from such an approach, and, of course the repetition of the allegation at trial was immune from prosecution.

However, what she wrote in her book, and has repeated endlessly and nauseously since her trial, could not possibly benefit from the same immunity.

Having brought this up it does not, I think, get a mention in Mignini’s book.

Posted by James Raper on 12/19/22 at 03:43 PM | #

Knox’s second calunnia trial was moved to Florence (and Dr Mignini drawn in for no reason) due to yet more dirty tricks by Dalla Vedova.

He got a judge to dictate the move. This made it very difficult for the busy investigators Knox had impugned (who had nothing to gain anyway, the complaints were a job requirement).

Our book-length 21-part Interrogation Hoax series is surely the last word on what happened that night, and in the days before and since - it involved half a dozen posters, many new translations, and checking of every aspect in Perugia.

Had Boninsegna read posts 19, 20, 2, and especially 12 here, he would have been dead in the water. Scroll down to Parts 2 and 3 of that post for dueling naratives of the night. Part 4 and Comments add more.

That Knox kept babbling about a dangerous Patrick on and off for several hours (when everyone was hoping she’d soon dry up) is a totally unbelievable response to a claimed (and unproven) clip or two on the head by (Knox finally remembers!) Rita Ficcara!

Who is even smaller than Knox is, but the only one sitting right beside her, so Ficarra it has to be.

But really?? Here is Zugarini to Knox’s right and Ficarra to her left. Its that tiny person that Knox has raged about for a decade and a half as her abuser in chief.

Why no appeal? Such an easy one to reverse. Because the investigators’ lawyer forgot, and missed the filing deadline.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/19/22 at 10:14 PM | #

CNN investigative reporter Drew Griffin is just reported to have died. Dr Mignini devotes a whole page to him in the book. It’s the longest passage on any reporter on the case. 

Generally Griffin had a distinguished career and usually CNN reporting on the case was not the worst. But on Meredith’s case Griffin did a truly appalling thing.

He went to Perugia with a team, and requested that Dr Mignini sit for an interview.

It was a protracted affair because interpretation occupied half the time and Griffin had numerous loaded questions that required more than soundbytes to be shot down.

Griffin seems to have spent some days having his mind addled with the Knox forces first, and though often smiling his questions were heavily loaded and pretty insulting at times.

He didn’t get Dr Mignini to confess to having got the case wrong or framed Knox, try as he may.

So CNN aired only a few soundbytes from the interview in a report of exceptional bias, and omitted all of Dr Mignini’s key points.

We posted some context before the report aired, and James Raper wrote an open letter to the head of CNN - no reply, but they never tried that trick again. The Machine spelled out 15 questions that Griffin should have asked.

Peggy Ganong got hold of the long Italian transcript and she and other Italian-language readers were pretty shocked at what they saw. The complete interview was translated and posted here.

Relevant links:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/20/22 at 09:27 AM | #

If you want to watch an example of anti-Italy American media bias on steroids, there’s a link above now to the 45 minute Drew Griffin report on YouTube. Here it is again.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/21/22 at 08:26 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Dr Mignini’s Book On How The Supreme Court Got Meredith’s Case So Wrong In 2015

Or to previous entry Mignini Unchained: Rollback Starts, Of Perhaps The World’s Greatest Legal Hoax