Thursday, May 19, 2011

Dear Ken Jautz Of CNN: Full CNN Interview With Mignini That CNN SHOULD Have Reflected #1

Posted by Skeptical Bystander

Introduction: Judgment and credibility

Candace Dempsey recently claimed that viewers would be able to “judge the credibility of Mignini […] when CNN airs Murder Abroad: The Amanda Knox Story”. In support of her claim, Dempsey provided an excerpt of the interview at end of her reader blog entry of May 6, 2011.

Viewers who managed to sit through the Drew Griffin/Doug Preston/CNN treatment of the Meredith Kercher case saw bits and pieces of what CNN risibly tried to pass off as an exclusive: access to one of the prosecutors, Giuliano Mignini, who indeed agreed to answer questions. What CNN failed to mention was that Mignini was actually interviewed for two-plus hours, and that he answered Mr. Griffin’s questions openly and without hesitation, not knowing that his answers would be severely and ruthlessly edited and cherry-picked to reflect something very different from what he actually said.

Not only did CNN fail to reveal this fact, Drew Griffin actually said (according to Dempsey) that “Mignini doesn’t really answer questions,” adding that Mignini “…talks and talks, going round and round and returning to certain things. I had to keep bringing him back to the evidence, to what’s actually being presented in court.”

This post and the next two to follow contain the original Italian transcript, authored by Turner Broadcasting and apparently then transcribed by a human being or by software (perhaps CNN will clarify). Whichever it was, the resulting document, which we obtained in the form of a word file, was clearly not subsequently corrected for errors, as readers of Italian will see. Presumably, the “three different interpreters” who “looked at Mignini’s interview to make sure that he was quoted correctly” did not read this transcript version of the interview.

Perhaps CNN can be persuaded to clarify the process or even to provide the actual audio and/or video of the interview. In the meantime, our translators demanded that we issue this translation with a giant red flag to signal that the transcript authored by Turner Broadcasting does not appear to be in complete and correct Italian. There are missing words, repeated words, and clearly wrong words. This may be because it was compiled by a non-native speaker. Again, only the folks at CNN can shed light on the process.

As you read the transcript or the translation of it, which was done by a team of volunteers (PMF posters Clander, Yummi, Jools, Thoughtful, TomM and Catnip), it is important to keep this in mind.

Also keep in mind that, according to Dempsey (based either on what Griffin told her or the cherry-picked interview snippets in the CNN program; perhaps Dempsey will clarify) “…instead of talking about hard evidence, Mignini kept returning to Amanda’s odd behavior; her relationship with Raffaele Sollecito, her Italian ex-boyfriend; and even her eyes (which, since they are blue, the Italian press called “icicle eyes”)”.

Griffin to Dempsey: “He truly believes she was the criminal mastermind behind the murder and that Raffaele was infatuated and under her spell.”

More Griffin to Dempsey: “Prosecutor Giuliano Miginini [sic] is, in my opinion, a rambling, confused individual.” (Drew Griffin to Candace Dempsey).

Dempsey:  “Griffin was surprised by Mignini’s willingness to say all sorts of things about Amanda that were not part of the trial.”

Griffin: “The kind of things that, if a prosecutor came to court in the U.S. and put before a judge, would get his whole case thrown out.”

And don’t forget what Candace Dempsey told potential viewers: that they would be able to make their own judgment calls when the documentary aired on Sunday, May 8, 2011.

We beg to differ.

We think that the viewers will have a much better basis on which to make a judgment call if they take the time to read the complete transcript and/or our translation of it. Then ask yourselves these questions:

Is Prosecutor Mignini evasive?

Does he give unclear responses?

Does he ramble?

Does he seem confused?

Compare the full interview with what viewers were shown. Then make your judgment call. Like us, you might be more tempted to make one about the people who did the cherry-picking, the packaging and the publicity for this hatchet job.

The remaining hour and a half will be posted in two more posts, one after saturday’s appeal session report, and one after the weekend.

First hour of the interview

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.

[Translator’s note: the transcript in Italian contains these words in English at this point: Starts with ****’* translation. This notation suggests that there is either a second journalist, who does not directly understand the answers, or that **** is using a translator, human or automatic. **** is used in the place of the individual’s name, which elsewhere is given as CNN. This is the only change that has been made to the transcript as delivered.]

The next post is here.


Thanks Skep to you and your translation team. This is a major effort to clarify the CNN hack job on Mignini.

CNN has to take a number of steps:

1) Apologize to Prosecutor Mignini for misrepresenting his words and presenting him as confused in the broadcast program when in fact his answers were detailed, relevant and clear.

2) Prepare a new version of the program with no lobbying spin towards a certain view of Mignini. No new interviews have to take place, as the content is already there

3) Investigate into why this Drew Griffin program on Mignini was so skewered. It’s not just a minor screw up. Who prepared Griffin’s questions? Who advised him on Mignini? Who made editing decisions to transform a lucid and fact based interview into yet another smear job like others we have seen from other American networks’ “investigative journalism” shows?

I’m amazed how one after another each attempt by certain elements of American media and media sectorial associations to portray Mignini in a negative manner fail.

The other recent attempt by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been a dismal farce for this organisation, which has been unable to support its libelous attack on Mignini by suggesting that he has a personal goon squad of national policemen.

I hope that CNN is more professional than the CPJ, and that it repairs the smear, instead of saying like Joel Simon and Nina Ognianova of the CPJ: “We stand by it”.

Posted by Kermit on 05/20/11 at 04:08 AM | #


A big thank you to you and the team for undertaking this major project and I can’t wait to read the further posts.

This project has excellence written all over it. Excellent investigative persistence in getting hold of the transcript, and excellent work on checking and/or undertaking the translation.

Who else has published or wanted to publish the full interview?

This hallmark of excellence is completely lacking in the pro-Amanda media/internet campaign where the only objective is to redact, dissemble and spin, spin, spin in pursuit of a thoroughly dishonest agenda.

In particular the major TV and newspaper outlets that give oxygen to this campaign should be thoroughly ashamed.

Posted by James Raper on 05/20/11 at 06:53 AM | #

@Kermit: It seems that most major corporations (despite its org status, CPJ is a corporation in its mindset) and many organizations, the ostrich strategy is the most expedient and the most often employed. I see this as a species of short-termism, however. In the longer term, little by little, CPJ’s credibility, like CNN’s, is being eroded.

@James Raper: As far as I know, no one else has published the full interview. I don’t know if shame is part of the affective repertoire of the major packagers of news, at least in America. The question is not “should we do this” but “can we do this”, driven by the quest for higher ratings. This too is a version of short-term thinking. Personally, I think the organizations charged with informing the public should not be traded on Wall Street. Yes, I am an idealist!

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 05/20/11 at 12:34 PM | #

Kudos to Skep and the team. I’ll post the link on Huffington Post, with a note that FOA seem trying to destroy his reputation since he IS involved at the Appeals level.

Posted by Ergon on 05/20/11 at 02:43 PM | #

This translation is right up ther on-par with the Massei trial summary translation.

Stunning and outstanding.

CNN might as well have sent “Bruce Fisher” himself to ask the questions, yet Dr. Mignini answers everything with intelligence and tact.

I’d like to see Rolling Stone put Dr. Mignini on their cover an print this interview just as it is - no comments and no changes.

This the most comprehensive survey of the prosecution’s view of the case ever produced, and it effectively answers every criticism raised from the limited “American” perspective.

And when contrasted with the actual CNN documentary the Drew Griffin produced (now hidden away as “Unraveling the case against Amanda Knox) on the CNN site)it also provides equally stunning social commentary on the exceptionally sad condition of not only CNN’s new reporting, but almost all of major United States broadcast organizations as well.

Shame, shame, and shame again.

Posted by Fly By Night on 05/20/11 at 03:00 PM | #

Great job Skep.
Forgive me for sounding dopey but I had some difficulty understanding something. Meredith and Amanda’s room were connected to the bathroom, or was Amanda’s and Meredith’s room connected together? Also, I have read people saying it was DNA/blood mix…So according to this article, it was blood/blood mixture in the bathroom, most likely from a nosebleed as Will Savive pointed out.

Posted by Barry on 05/20/11 at 07:01 PM | #

@Barry: The real credit goes to the team that did the translating: Clander, Yummi, Jools, Thoughtful, TomM and Catnip.

In answer to your first question, neither. Their rooms were not connected and they were not connected to the bathroom. These are three separate rooms.

Whether or not AK’s DNA is from blood or not is a hotly debated topic. My understanding from the testimony summarized in Massei is that it most likely is blood. As to whether or not it came from a nosebleed, I don’t know.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 05/20/11 at 07:22 PM | #

Thank you so much, Skeptical Bystander and PMF translators. I want to thank all the incredible volunteers who worked hard on this CNN-Mignini interview:
Skeptical Bystander

I was really looking forward to read every word Mignini said before Drew Griffin and Co. chopped away half of it and sliced and diced it for soundbites they wanted. Sure enough, Mignini showed an encyclopedic memory of the case. He has a colossal grasp of what has become a tedious, burgeoning massif of details, but he keeps to the main trail at all times. He only repeats himself and enlarges his descriptions and explanations to give clarity and avoid misunderstandings. That is probably why Griffin felt he rambled or said too much. Mignini is bending over backwards to explain, explain, and reword and re-explain so that as he well knows, if he miscommunicates in one phrase the listeners may learn it in another.

He recalls names of individuals (Armando Finzi, Giobbi, Laura Mezetti, Patrick D. Lumumba, he even remembered Lumumba’s middle initial!) and so many things. It’s not like he has a website or cribnotes in front of him. Well maybe he had reviewed his own notes, but this case goes back three years. At an interview it’s too late to fumble with aids to memory like books and newspapers in the lap. Besides recalling this Eiger of a case, the man has different work to attend to besides the Kercher murder. He is brilliant and stays cool under scrutiny. He never loses his footing when attacked, which it seems the entire Drew Griffin “interview” was, an attack.

Mignini thinks more emphasis needs to be on the blue rug’s footprint in blood. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mignini confidently asserts there were bloody footprints of Amanda and Raffaele at the scene, as the scientific police reported it. The FOA has done their worst to discredit this evidence. To the Scientific Police Mignini gives credit as the best and the brightest. They certainly insisted he “suit up” and wear shoecovers on every walk-through of the cottage, of which he did several.

He highlights that Amanda herself dates the mixed blood in the bathroom by saying it was not there when she left the cottage on November 1st (2007) but then it was there when she came back into the cottage the next morning to shower. So it was obviously left during the night while Meredith was murdered, and Amanda’s blood was mixed with it.

The simulated fakeness of the burglary, Raffaele’s ditched confirmation that Amanda stayed home with him all night, and “the profound shock in which she (Amanda Knox) always fell every time she had to tell what happened that night,” these clues led to suspicions of Amanda and Raffaele’s involvement in the crime as much as had the genetic profiles by scientific police. Mignini is careful to remind us of the bigger picture, the totality of the evidence, which Amanda due to her squirreling and tumbling has been eager to erase in a multitude of verbal trivia and confusing discussion of side issues, and the media follow right along with her, overlooking the obvious. Mignini stays right on the scent, not sidetracked by tricks.

Mignini is honest and humble enough to tell Griffin, “I am not the chief prosecutor, I am the deputy prosecutor,” and he gives much credit to Comodi whom he brought in as another deputy prosecutor to handle the scientific evidence while he pursued the people under investigation. He says, “Comodi has a remarkable aptitude for aspects of a genetic nature.” So he was wise to delegate and divide up the tasks so the investigation had plenty of resources.

He especially wants to impart that he took care to question Armando Finzi, the inspector who found the knife at Raf’s place. Mignini quizzed him about wearing clean gloves, making sure he had handled the knife correctly to insure no contamination. Mignini questioned this inspector carefully and did due diligence to secure the knife for lab tests. He reminds the naysayers the burden of proof is on them if they want to cry foul.

I like the photos that accompany this post. I’ve named the photos from top to bottom:
The Pensive Prosecutor
The Active Prosecutor
The Sociable Prosecutor
The Listening Prosecutor

Mignini has found the balance!

Oh, and Drew Griffin I call:
The Contentious Questioner

CNN, you had a great man in your midst, deal fairly with him as he would with you.

Thank you to all who had a hand in getting this complete interview from CNN, quite a task, and then translated and put online, plus explanatory post. The next parts of the interview will be equally gratifying, no doubt. Mignini leads the way.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/20/11 at 07:41 PM | #

I feel for prosecutor Mignini, who gave an honest and detailed interview, to an interviewer who was not there to listen but to dictate what he wanted to hear.

“CNN : ... what was it is that triggered you, made you begin to feel suspicious, and led you to conduct a more aggressive interrogation ?”

It was not “evil Mignini being triggered”, CNN. It was the “amazing boyfriend” Sollecito throwing Knox under the bus ! How hard is it to understand that ?

0f course, that fact is not among what the PR campain fed you, but you’re journalists, right ?

Posted by Sylviane on 05/21/11 at 05:35 AM | #

i see via Barbie Nadeau on twitter that—In Perugia the independent experts are asking for further documentations.

Posted by mojo on 05/21/11 at 06:16 AM | #

more from Barbie Nadeau in Perugia - independent experts have until June 30 to deposit results. next hearings July 25, 29 & 30th. Judge determining whether or not new witnesses can be called.

Posted by mojo on 05/21/11 at 06:37 AM | #

At this moment I appreciate ( well, tolerate . . . ) Barbie Latza Nadeau´s dry fact reporting. I don´t understand why she will ¨miss the Italian Blogger´s perspective, while being a professional journalist herself. Otherwise: ´professonal´can mean ´money driven´. Nadeau calls ( a part of ?) her audience ´Perugia Obsessed´. Who would that be?

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/21/11 at 08:05 AM | #

interesting development - Inmates To Give Evidence In Knox Appeal

Posted by mojo on 05/21/11 at 08:26 AM | #

Technical question? Does Italian law require the Knox’s be provided translations of all judgments?

Posted by Ergon on 05/21/11 at 06:43 PM | #

A telling detail in Mignini’s own words about
Amanda Knox’s genetic material on the handle of the knife:

“...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”  It was not used for slicing, in other words, as when cooking, but deposited in a place which may indicate an upward thrust!

And now another delay. But it is hardly to be thought that two experts (among several) by searching through more “documentation” will overturn forensic evidence accepted along with other evidence as a basis for Amanda’s conviction.  Or that the testimony of five convicts, unsupported by Guede himself, can achieve anything new.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 05/22/11 at 10:11 AM | #

Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry So The Two Pressed Defense Teams Decide To Go Eyeball To Eyeball With The Supreme Court Of Cassation

Or to previous entry Andrea Vogt Obtains New Rome Embassy Cables From State, Still Showing Zero Concern About Knox