Und? Irgendwelche Neuigkeiten?HansM schrieb:Da ist es nun, das exklusive Interview mit Rudy Guede...
Ja und ja.
Ist das glaubwürdig nachgewiesen?
Das weiß ich noch nicht sicher.sooma schrieb:Und? Irgendwelche Neuigkeiten?
Ja, genau so verhält es sich. Eine "Mörderin" oder Tatbeteiligte Amanda Knox hat es niemals gegeben. Das, und nichts Anderes, sagen die Spuren bei seriöser Einordnung auch aus.
Ist das glaubwürdig nachgewiesen?
Two prosecutors investigate a brutal murder that took place in Perugia on the night of November 1, 2007, the victim of a twenty-year-old English girl. The investigations of the delegated judicial police converge on an Ivorian, an American girl and an Apulian boy from an excellent family. About twenty judges who over the years have held trials and issued convictions also agree. In the end, the American and the Apulian are acquitted with doubtful formula, the Ivorian serves a sentence of sixteen and a half years in prison. But having done his duty as a magistrate triggers the paradoxical effect: the international media pillory reserved only for Giuliano Mignini, "guilty" of having also investigated the death of Francesco Narducci. In this powerful and enlightening book he finally speaks, the magistrate who made certain investigations and certain processes: the law, despite everything, always remains the same for everyone.... das Vorwort (google Übersetzung):
Preface...und dasInhaltsverzeichnis (google Übersetzung):
I have always maintained that the magistrate is a person, an individual, like anyone else. Blood flows in his veins, a heart beats in his chest. But, a refined aptitude of a logical nature must reside in his head. As the author of this volume himself, the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, testifies through the story of the well-known judicial affair linked to the crime of Meredith Kercher which sees him as the protagonist in the double role - as he himself states - of investigator and jurist.
From reading the pages of the book, Mignini's special talent in observing the facts immediately emerges on which, only later, the investigative hypotheses are grafted and never vice versa. There is no falling in love with a hypothesis. Far from it.
We see it clearly when the author of the book recounts his arrival at the house in via della Pergola, the scene of the tragic crime. At first Mignini analyzes the house from the outside, noting that the window whose glass has been broken (which is why the police are initially alerted) is not easily accessible except by scaling or climbing a few meters on the wall below it . The Magistrate immediately notices that there is no sign, no scratch on that wall such as to prove that a possible attacker had entered the house by that route. Add to this − Mignini realizes − that it would have been much easier to enter through other windows closer to the ground and less visible to any passers-by.
Once inside, our investigator - it's easy for me to call him that at this point - also notices that on the sill of the violated window there are glass splinters with which, if someone had passed by there, they would have inevitably been injured. But there was no trace of blood precisely to confirm that the breaking of that glass could only be a misdirection.
This is what it means to act methodically: first observe and only then formulate hypotheses capable of grasping a logical connection between the observed facts and the hypothesis formulated as proof of the same.
A good investigator, a good magistrate is recognized precisely by that attitude - which the author of this book himself recognizes - to connect facts or behaviors distant from each other in time or space. This attitude is the true red thread of the story that unfolds in the pages of this book. And it is for this reason that, as a teacher, he also recommends reading it to students and young jurists who want to pursue a judicial career. A book therefore, this one by Mignini, aimed not only at an audience of experts.
Both on the literary level and on the judiciary, the choice linked to the chronology of the facts is teaching. Not because of how they happened, but in the order in which they were revealed to the Prosecutor himself. In this way the reader can relive with the author the sensations, impressions, knowledge, deductions precisely in the order in which the protagonist investigator lived them.
The story told in this book also has the peculiarity of developing on different levels. If, on the one hand, the story tells of a young victim of a heinous crime and of three equally young people accused of the same crime; on the other hand, the story also tells of political and media pressure and unjustified attacks on the prosecution. As for political pressure, they are explicitly reported in the book, together with the criticisms that the highest institutions in the States addressed both to the investigating magistrates and to the Italian judicial system itself. A system of which there is evidence that the Americans were far from grasping both the letter and the spirit.
An overseas innocentist press was grafted onto these political pressures. Press that, even today, is silent on circumstances of no less importance such as the definitive sentence for slander suffered by Amanda Knox.
A bad story that narrated by Mignini in this volume.
Ugly for the young age of the victim: Meredith, Metz for friends, as Mignini himself recalls. Bad for the young age of the defendants: Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede. Bad for the "interferences" that, in particular, the trial of Knox and Sollecito had to suffer.
In this regard, Mignini dwells, in the final pages of his book, on the work of the V section of the Court of Cassation. This Section, contradicting the previous indications of the First Section of the same Court of Cassation, annulled the sentence of conviction of the defendants Knox and Sollecito by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, itself decreeing the acquittal of the defendants. This fact is as serious as it is difficult to understand. The Florentine judge, in fact, could only follow the indications of the I section of the Court of Cassation. The V section, not being a judge of the merits, could then neither condemn nor acquit anyone.
Yet this happened and, I would add, for this very reason if the case is judicially closed, it still remains open in the eyes of a large part of public opinion.
Finally, on the side of the legal case, I would like to return to the literary nature of the text in question. In this sense, both the autobiographical digressions (childhood, the disappearance of the father...) and the historical digressions (from the Etruscan origins of the places narrated to the suburb of Croydon, Meredith's place of origin, evocative of a part of Spanish history linked to Francisco Franco). In the background there are also always geographical references that allow the reader to better contextualize everything.
As I hope I have shown in this preface, there are many reasons for traversing the pages of this book and learning, perhaps for the first time, decisive details that have remained hidden from the general public.
Simona C. Sagnotti *
* Full Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of Perugia. where she also teaches legal informatics, legal logic and judicial criminology; in addition to Epistemology and criminal evidence in the Advanced Training Course in Criminological Sciences and Investigation Techniques
Index...so ansehe, glaube ich kaum, dass Staatsanwalt Mignini uns hier irdendetwas Neues erzählen wird, schade, eigentlich. :(
Preface 9
Premise 13
A shift that seemed peaceful 21
The turning point 52
Rudy hermann guede 76
The end of the investigation 86
Lake trasimeno and "monsters" of florence 113
The preliminary hearing 119
The judgment of first instance 128
The first appeal process 188
The “forgotten” sentence 266
The Florentine referral judgment 276
The unexpected epilogue: the "mystery" of the v section 279
The Netflix documentary film 305
The ECHR sentence 310
Amanda asks me to meet me 313
Conclusion 323
Appendix - Judgments 337
Das ist mal wieder der traurige Beweis, dass ein(e) Morderdächtige(r) auch nach expliziter Entlastung keine Ruhe bekommt.
Ist das glaubwürdig nachgewiesen?
Nach eigenen Aussagen wurde sie bei der Befragung (Anfangs ohne Übersetzer) unter Druck gesetzt und mit Suggestivfragen beeinflusst.SuiGeneris schrieb:Warum hat Knox denn Lumumba beschuldigt? Wurde ihr das eingeredet?
Wurde sie zu dieser Aussage gezwungen? Was wollte man damit bezwecken?
Hat sie etwas verwechselt, weil Guedes auch schwarz war?
Deswegen kein Verhör ohne Anwalt. Es gibt genug Beispiele, wo man dermaßen unter Druck gesetzt wurde und dann etwas zugab, was man nicht getan hat, weil man dachte, die Wahrheit wird sich schon zeigen und man ist dann raus aus der Nummer. Ist in Deutschland aber unzulässig.
Es ist schlimmer, denn das "glauben" bestand nach eigenen Aussagen von Knox ja darin, dass sie für kurze Zeit das "Narrativ" der Polizei selbst für möglich hielt und sich einbildete etwas vergessen zu haben!
Und passiert dennoch immer wieder. Siehe den Rupp Fall.SomertonMan schrieb:Ist in Deutschland aber unzulässig.
Amanda hatte an dem Abend sms-Kontakt mit Lumumba (in dessen Bar sie stundenweise arbeitete), dass ihr Einsatz an dem Abend nicht von Nöten sei, worauf sie sich in typisch amerikanischer Manier mit "see you" von ihm verabschiedete - was wiederum die Italiener so auslegten resp. übersetzten, dass sie sich ja gleich sehen werden. "See you" wird aber auch als Abschiedsfloskel genutzt wenn gar nicht klar ist, wann man sich wieder sehen wird. So analog unserem "tschüss".
Die Beamten brachten den Namen ins Spiel, nicht Knox. Durch die erwähnte Antwort-SMS an Lumumba, die sie falsch verstanden und falsch übersetzten, kamen die auf den Trichter, dass sich Knox mit ihm für die Mordnacht verabredet hatte (was nachweislich nicht der Fall war) und hielten ihn, da ein Haar, das am tatort gefunden worden war, einem Schwarzen gehörte, für einen Mittäter. Knox, das wissen wir aus den Verlautbarungen der Polizei, bestritt das zunächst wahrheitsgemäß, und bestätigte den Verdacht der Beamten erst, nachdem sie mehrere Stunden erheblich bearbeitet worden war.
Wurde sie zu dieser Aussage gezwungen? Was wollte man damit bezwecken?
Hat sie etwas verwechselt, weil Guedes auch schwarz war?
