ChatterBank1 min ago
Foxy Noxy Off Again !
96 Answers
http://
What on earth is going on here, is the Italian justice system really that bad?
What on earth is going on here, is the Italian justice system really that bad?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Why was Knox buying loads of cleaning products early the next morning?
Why did she implicate an innocent man?
Why was she doing cartwheels at the police station when she was waiting to be interviewed?
Why would Guede try to make it look like a break-in?
What was Knox's reaction when Lumumba sacked her for her overtly sexual flirting with customers and losing all her shifts to Meredith?
Why is Solicitors now refusing to give her an alibi for the night of the murder?
Why has Knox changed her story so many times?
Why did she implicate an innocent man?
Why was she doing cartwheels at the police station when she was waiting to be interviewed?
Why would Guede try to make it look like a break-in?
What was Knox's reaction when Lumumba sacked her for her overtly sexual flirting with customers and losing all her shifts to Meredith?
Why is Solicitors now refusing to give her an alibi for the night of the murder?
Why has Knox changed her story so many times?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
The "purchase of cleaning products"
The "clean up" was a story fed to the media by Guiliano Mignini. It turned out to be a complete fabrication. But prosecutor Mignini succeeded in making the myth stick in the minds of both the public, and the media.
The story given to the Press began with Amanda being seen waiting outside a shop, the morning after Meredith was murdered, supposedly waiting to buy bleach. Mignini also told the Press that the Police had receipts showing that Amanda bought bleach. Many of the myths about the whole case can be traced back to the Mail On Sunday. However, the story about the clean up and the bleach receipts were reported on 19 November 2007, by Richard Owen in The Times. This gave it an apparent veneer of credibility. The report repeated specific details, namely:
(1) that police had found receipts for bleach dated the morning after the murder, and
(2) that the purchase was made at 8:30am, and
(3) that a second purchase was made at 9:15am.
This all proved to be a total fabrication. At the Trial, it turned out that the police had:
(1) no witnesses, and
(2) no receipts.
Because the story had appeared in The Times, other newspapers felt confident about repeating it. Within a few days of 19 November 2007, most of the UK Press had reproduced the story that there had been an attempted clean up. Prosecutor Mignini's misinformation machine had succeeded. Even when, at Trial, the story was exposed as untrue, the world, including much of the Press, could still not clear their heads of the story that there had been a clean up. In truth, Mignini had invented the whole story. It was a complete fabrication.
In the meantime, on 25 November 2007, again in The Times, Richard Owen quoted a " Police source" as saying that the house, "appeared to have been thoroughly cleaned with bleach."
As his own lies started to unravel through lack of evidence, Mignini started to embellish with wild abandon. Remember that, by this time, Mignini's vivid and lurid imagination was already dreaming up the bizarre notion that the crime had involved, as so famously quoted, a "sex game gone wrong". He said at a Press conference that, when the Postal Police arrived at the house, Amanda and Raffaele were standing on the porch with "a mop, a bucket, and some bleach". This was already known to be untrue, because there were plenty of photographs and video taken at the scene. It also contradicted the description of the scene given at earlier Press conferences. But the Press were so drawn by the "clean up" story that the mop and bucket myth was also widely reported.
Then Mignini told the press that Amanda had used the (imaginary) bleach to "attempt to clean her finger prints from the crime scene". Mignini stated: "It is reasonable to hypothesise" (aah, that word!) that "she felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from the apartment in which she lived." Three things here:
(1) it was not "reasonable" to suggest that Amanda hoped to remove all traces of ever having been in her own apartment. It was a patently absurd suggestion.
(2) the word "hypothesise", which was used again and again by Mignini throughout the investigation and the Trial. The word "hypothesise" meant ... "we have no evidence". The other dangerous phrase repeatedly used by Mignini, in this and in other Trials that he conducted, was that "evidence" was "not inconsistent with" his theory". Think about that phrase! It means ... "The evidence we have does not support our theory. At best, it doesn't completely disprove it". How strong is such evidence? By was of illustration, finding a banana skin somewhere in Perugia would be "not inconsistent" with you or I having flown to Italy and murdered Meredith, because we all eat bananas.
(continued ...)
The "clean up" was a story fed to the media by Guiliano Mignini. It turned out to be a complete fabrication. But prosecutor Mignini succeeded in making the myth stick in the minds of both the public, and the media.
The story given to the Press began with Amanda being seen waiting outside a shop, the morning after Meredith was murdered, supposedly waiting to buy bleach. Mignini also told the Press that the Police had receipts showing that Amanda bought bleach. Many of the myths about the whole case can be traced back to the Mail On Sunday. However, the story about the clean up and the bleach receipts were reported on 19 November 2007, by Richard Owen in The Times. This gave it an apparent veneer of credibility. The report repeated specific details, namely:
(1) that police had found receipts for bleach dated the morning after the murder, and
(2) that the purchase was made at 8:30am, and
(3) that a second purchase was made at 9:15am.
This all proved to be a total fabrication. At the Trial, it turned out that the police had:
(1) no witnesses, and
(2) no receipts.
Because the story had appeared in The Times, other newspapers felt confident about repeating it. Within a few days of 19 November 2007, most of the UK Press had reproduced the story that there had been an attempted clean up. Prosecutor Mignini's misinformation machine had succeeded. Even when, at Trial, the story was exposed as untrue, the world, including much of the Press, could still not clear their heads of the story that there had been a clean up. In truth, Mignini had invented the whole story. It was a complete fabrication.
In the meantime, on 25 November 2007, again in The Times, Richard Owen quoted a " Police source" as saying that the house, "appeared to have been thoroughly cleaned with bleach."
As his own lies started to unravel through lack of evidence, Mignini started to embellish with wild abandon. Remember that, by this time, Mignini's vivid and lurid imagination was already dreaming up the bizarre notion that the crime had involved, as so famously quoted, a "sex game gone wrong". He said at a Press conference that, when the Postal Police arrived at the house, Amanda and Raffaele were standing on the porch with "a mop, a bucket, and some bleach". This was already known to be untrue, because there were plenty of photographs and video taken at the scene. It also contradicted the description of the scene given at earlier Press conferences. But the Press were so drawn by the "clean up" story that the mop and bucket myth was also widely reported.
Then Mignini told the press that Amanda had used the (imaginary) bleach to "attempt to clean her finger prints from the crime scene". Mignini stated: "It is reasonable to hypothesise" (aah, that word!) that "she felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from the apartment in which she lived." Three things here:
(1) it was not "reasonable" to suggest that Amanda hoped to remove all traces of ever having been in her own apartment. It was a patently absurd suggestion.
(2) the word "hypothesise", which was used again and again by Mignini throughout the investigation and the Trial. The word "hypothesise" meant ... "we have no evidence". The other dangerous phrase repeatedly used by Mignini, in this and in other Trials that he conducted, was that "evidence" was "not inconsistent with" his theory". Think about that phrase! It means ... "The evidence we have does not support our theory. At best, it doesn't completely disprove it". How strong is such evidence? By was of illustration, finding a banana skin somewhere in Perugia would be "not inconsistent" with you or I having flown to Italy and murdered Meredith, because we all eat bananas.
(continued ...)
(...continued)
(3) our third point, remember? At the trial, Giuseppe Privitera, the prosecution's own fingerprint expert, totally refuted Mignini's hypothesis. He said that "nothing found at the cottage suggested that any effort had been made to remove fingerprints intentionally". No traces of bleach. No smell of bleach. Nothing to do with bleach. Nothing. Nada.
Mignini had hoped that Giuseppe Privitera would fabricate evidence at Trial to support Mignini's "hypothesis". But Privitera told the truth. However, Mignini continued to refer to the (now proven to be non existent) clean up. And, bizarrely, the world swallowed the lies. On 10 December 2009, after Privitera had given evidence that there was no clean up, after the prosecution had admitted that they had no witness, and after they had admitted that there never were any receipts, and that it was all just a figment of Prosecutor Mignini's imagination, American journalist Anne Coulter repeated the discredited "clean up" story on a Fox News programme called the O'Reilly Factor.
In fact, at the time when Mignini claimed a witness had seen Amanda going to buy bleach, Raffaele had already called the police to report a suspected break in. The Police subsequently gave a false statement about Raffaele's phone records, suggesting that he had only called the Police when he knew that they were already on their way. This was to try to suggest that he was being crafty. But the phone records also came out at Trial. At the time when Mignini claimed that Amanda was buying bleach, the truth was that Raffaele had already called the Police, and he and Amanda were waiting for them to arrive.
In a last, desperate attempt to support his "clean up" fiction, Mignini came up with a new claim. He said that it was Raffaele who had purchased the bleach, and claimed that receipts had been found in Raffaele's apartment. Again, this was simply not true. Raffaele's apartment was thoroughly searched. Receipts were found in his apartment. The police took video of all the receipts that were found. When the videos were examined, none of the receipts were for bleach.
So:
There was no attempted clean up.
There was no witness.
There were no receipts.
There was no mop, and no bucket.
The whole story was a complete fabrication by prosecutor Mignini.
The Police then attempted to make the story look credible by falsifying mobile phone records.
Quite simply - the "attempted clean up" never happened.
J x
(3) our third point, remember? At the trial, Giuseppe Privitera, the prosecution's own fingerprint expert, totally refuted Mignini's hypothesis. He said that "nothing found at the cottage suggested that any effort had been made to remove fingerprints intentionally". No traces of bleach. No smell of bleach. Nothing to do with bleach. Nothing. Nada.
Mignini had hoped that Giuseppe Privitera would fabricate evidence at Trial to support Mignini's "hypothesis". But Privitera told the truth. However, Mignini continued to refer to the (now proven to be non existent) clean up. And, bizarrely, the world swallowed the lies. On 10 December 2009, after Privitera had given evidence that there was no clean up, after the prosecution had admitted that they had no witness, and after they had admitted that there never were any receipts, and that it was all just a figment of Prosecutor Mignini's imagination, American journalist Anne Coulter repeated the discredited "clean up" story on a Fox News programme called the O'Reilly Factor.
In fact, at the time when Mignini claimed a witness had seen Amanda going to buy bleach, Raffaele had already called the police to report a suspected break in. The Police subsequently gave a false statement about Raffaele's phone records, suggesting that he had only called the Police when he knew that they were already on their way. This was to try to suggest that he was being crafty. But the phone records also came out at Trial. At the time when Mignini claimed that Amanda was buying bleach, the truth was that Raffaele had already called the Police, and he and Amanda were waiting for them to arrive.
In a last, desperate attempt to support his "clean up" fiction, Mignini came up with a new claim. He said that it was Raffaele who had purchased the bleach, and claimed that receipts had been found in Raffaele's apartment. Again, this was simply not true. Raffaele's apartment was thoroughly searched. Receipts were found in his apartment. The police took video of all the receipts that were found. When the videos were examined, none of the receipts were for bleach.
So:
There was no attempted clean up.
There was no witness.
There were no receipts.
There was no mop, and no bucket.
The whole story was a complete fabrication by prosecutor Mignini.
The Police then attempted to make the story look credible by falsifying mobile phone records.
Quite simply - the "attempted clean up" never happened.
J x
Latest Posts
Body & Soul5 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Day Trippers Will Have To Pay €5 To...
News14 mins ago
Body & Soul14 mins ago
Who Inherits If Children Are Adopted ?
Law18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.