Talk:Giuliano Mignini/Archive 1

Early life and career
This article is in neeed of additional citations and information about early life and career if supportable by reputable sources. Dougbremner (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and praise
IMHO this article should be removed and kept as a draft until more general biographical information can be added. WP:BLPSTYLE states, "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." I am concerned that the article (although the tone is good and the headings are netural) is structured so that it basically only covers criticisms of his career. (Connolly15 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC))
 * There are items in here like the opinion that his conviction essentially doesn't matter that tilt in favor of the subject. Most of the RS focus on his controversial cases, he is a controversial figure, there is no getting around that. Dougbremner (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I appreciate he is controversial, but this "biographical article" doesn't even have his age and it's been around since 13 October. The Monster of Florence article as it stands does not mention him.  Perhaps it would be better to split this article and transfer the text to the relevant articles on the murders? (Connolly15 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Mignini is in the Italian version. Dougbremner (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ... He is mentioned once in the article in passing only along with all the other prosecutors involved, and he does not have his own page on Italian wikipedia... (Connolly15 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Reliable sources
"patricking (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The most information available about Mignini, including his family background, education and assent to Public Minister is in Nina Burleigh's The Fatal Gift of Beauty. Nonetheless, outside of that source very little life and career information is available on this person at all, even in Italian. This, in and of itself, is a red flag that research needs to be performed. Certainly this person did not live 62 years and raise to Public Minister on the basis of two cases that HE LOST! In MOF he was actually convicted of abuse of office and sentenced to 1 year and 4 moths, suspended. He may very well be sanctioned in some way for obstruction of justice in MOMK, as well. Why is an Italian Public Minister's career a secret?

We have a page devoted to Vincent Bugliosi who, by the same token, anyone might say is only relevant regarding the Manson murders. patricking (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011

"...minor convictions... are rarely grounds for removing a prosecutor from office".
Some editor marked this as dubious after first trying to remove it. I don't see it as dubious at all considering that "... in Italy sentences of less then two years are not required to be seved,..." (from the same source/page#). Now if there are other sources that contradict this in any way we would have grounds to reconsider the paragraph, otherwise I see no reason to have a dubious tag attached. Any thoughts?TMCk (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you find a second high-quality source that says the same thing? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? I'm not in doubt about this and it's reliable sourced. Can you find a contradicting RS though is the question.TMCk (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's counter-intuitive that an official would be unlikely to be removed from office for abuse of office, and I've seen several editors say they've found key errors in Naudeau's book. So given that it's an opinion, not a fact that no one disputes, I'd appreciate a second, high-quality source. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, the article in Corriere della Sera already cited in the article (http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_gennaio_22/mostro-firenze-giuttari-mignini_8d07606e-075a-11df-8946-00144f02aabe.shtml) mentions this issue: "A chi gli chiedeva se l'interdizione dai pubblici uffici - come pena accessoria - possa avere effetti sulla professione di Mignini, Ronco ha ricordato che «ovviamente, la pena è sospesa per la condizionale e questo vale anche per l'interdizione»" "When asked if the prohibition from holding public office - as an additional sentence - could have an effect on Mignini's profession, Ronco [The article says earlier that he is Mignini's defence attorney] said, "obviously, the sentence is suspended for probation and this applies to the prohibition on holding public office as well." (My translation) This implies even if he is found guilty after the appeal that as long as the sentence remains suspended it won't affect his position.  Also, it is maybe worth noting that the same article says the Prosecution originally only asked for Mignini to be sentenced to 10 months. (Connolly15 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC))


 * Thank you. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do you come to the conclusion that it implies that even if found guilty after the appeal it won't affect his position? He is not guilty until the appeal finds him so, why don't we wait until the appeal and see what happens. Dougbremner (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict): [To SlimVirgin] Your opinion is noted but just as mine has no weight here. I still urge you to find a) a RS that contradicts the existing source or b) a RS that showes clearly that Nadeau's book is not reliable for such statements even if attributed to her.TMCk (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There were several issues in Nadeau's book that struck me as odd. For example, she writes that one of the forensic team, Patrizia Stefanoni, found traces of human flesh (specifically flesh) on the kitchen knife the prosecution said was the murder weapon (p. 131). I have seen this claim only in this book and on one of the anti-Knox sites, without attribution. Do you know whether Stefanoni ever claimed this? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better relying on corriere.it article rather than on Nadeau's book, 'cause the italian news site cites precise words from Mignini's attorney about Perugia prosecutor's current status. -- Juanm  (talk)  19:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My only concern here is that the article, which already on thin ice as far as notability, be fair and balanced. I trust the editors here to do quality work. But as far as Nadeau, all the books that were published early in the case suffer from wrong or incomplete information. Ditto every single journalist who has written about this subject. Part of our job is to recognize those inevitable POV issues and not let them into the article. Brmull (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there was consensus on one of the related pages that the Nadeau book cannot be cherry picked out of the list of citations since if we use accuracy as a criteria probably all books have an error some where so everything will be exluded. Criteria is published by a publisher where there is an editor with editorial control, and the book fits that criteria. Dougbremner (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The best thing is not to use early sources when later ones are available, as far as possible, unless we're using the early ones as primary sources, i.e. as illustrations of what was being said at any given point. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Rome-based journalist and author Barbie Latza Nadeau, minor convictions such as this are rarely grounds for removing a prosecutor from office" p. 94 Angel Face I don't think this should be included, based on the fact that there are a lot of errors in the book cited making it not reliable, much of the errors are traceable to erroneous information communicated by the police and prosecutors to the author making her not neutral, and on the face of it a conviction with jail time of over a year is hardly a "minor conviction". In the end this is just an opinion of the author which she probably got from one of the officials involved, if not directly from the subject of this entry. Dougbremner (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the word "minor" as a fair compromise. Dougbremner (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC brmull's (my) alleged confict of interest
I would like to get a wider consensus on this since I am being effectively banned from editing by SlimVirgin. Please comment at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Thanks and I will out no one who participates! Brmull (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I commented there and for once I think I agree with you. Connolly15 raised what he perceives as my personal WP:Conflict_of_interest and I address it there. Dougbremner (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Brigitta Bulgari
Please discuss here instead of reverting without reading the primary sources. Dougbremner (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the only real source for the 2 English references is The Sun, a tabloid newspaper in the UK. The CBS article just reports what The Sun said (and a Russian news site) and The Metro is doing the same (Metro is a free newspaper on UK public transit, it does no original reporting).  It has at least one mistake (calls Mignini a judge?).  I did some searching and found this Italian source (http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2011/10/06/assolta-la-pornostar-brigitta-non-coinvolse-minori-nella-sua-esibizione/), which doesn't give the same quotes for the defence lawyer as The Sun reported.  Anyway, frankly, quoting a defence lawyer saying his client was wrongfully charged is not really noteworthy, would you expect him to say otherwise?  Google.it searches show that no major Italian media picked up or carried the story that I can see and the English source is a tabloid which has at least one obvious error in its reporting.  Do you have any main stream sources for this?  Besides, wouldn't the judge decide to remand her not the magistrate?  I can't even tell if she was remanded because the sources are so brief on detail! (Connolly15 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Also, The Sun seems to now have removed the articles on this from its website?? (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2995201/Playboy-girl-let-teens-grope-her.html) and (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3006885/Playboy-grope-girl-blames-club.html)... (Connolly15 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Panorama is a pretty populuar magazine in Italy. The criteria for reliable source is that they have an editorial staff, obviously there has been a string of false reporting in all of these related cases (Knox, etc) in papers like The Sun. As for Mignini he is "procuratore", I think the papers get mixed up because procuratore has some functions that are kind of judge like. I edited to make it more general so not innacurate. As for the quotes, common sense says, why did they let young boys in there? I agree the papers are all over the place and panorama is the most reliable so far. If someone wants to cut some of her comments that's fine with me. Dougbremner (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think reliability goes beyond just an editorial staff, as my high school newspaper had one of those. Panorama may be popular, so is The Sun.  With those criteria The National Enquirer is a reliable source.  If The Sun confused "procuratore" with judge, they obviously failed to consult an English - Italian dictionary: "attorney, prosecuting attorney, prosecutor, state prosecutor" (Oxford Dictionary) and it casts even further doubt on the quality of their work in this case.  And why have the articles disappeared from their website?  I'm not trying to defend the club owners, it's terrible that under-18s got through, but I highly doubt it was intentional, which maybe rationally explains why they weren't charged?  That's the same reason she was found not guilty she lacked the mens rea.  I can see an argument going the other way for her mens rea though... I'm not saying it's the case... but basically she's arguing she didn't realise they were under-18 when they were grabbing her so she couldn't have had intent, you can see how that could be argued the other way.  I just fundamentally disagree with the approach that this Wiki article is taking - I can guarantee that anyone in the future who is found not guilty where Mignini is the prosecutor will feel sympathy for Amanda Knox and express it, try to write a book and try to sue for damages - and the tabloids will pick it up.  Are we going to include everyone?  What about all the successful convictions he's brought since 1979?  Oh wait, we can't include those, because funny enough the media doesn't report them... most definitely not presenting a neutral case. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC))


 * We shouldn't use tabloids as sources about living people, so I've removed those. I wonder about the relevance of the porn star section. We can't include material about everyone he has ever prosecuted who didn't like it. Whatever criticism the article contains should stick to serious sources raising serious issues. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 06:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Panorama is not a tabloid. You can look at WP:RS for guidance on what is a reliable source. The page includes prosecutions of notable figures and Bulgari is a notable figure based on the fact that she has her own Wikipedia page. See for example Daniel_Horowitz as an example of a notable figure who is an attorney and what is and is not included in that page-- i.e. cases involving notable personages. Dougbremner (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone added the Sun as a source, and it's a tabloid. I can see that high-profile cases are included in other prosecutors' pages, but was this porn star case a high-profile one? Or did it get publicity just because Mignini is now high-profile because of the Knox case? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * She is famous in Italy not only as a porn star but because of doing things like getting arrested for going topless to a major soccer match as a self-professed publicity getting measure. Her arrest didn't get publicity just because Mignini is high profile because of Knox. Dougbremner (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is that everything Mignini does will be notable enough now to be included here, just because someone, somewhere, has written about it. The same now applies to Knox (Knox goes shopping, Knox buys toothpaste, Knox ties her hair up/down). Our articles really should ignore that level of coverage, especially for people who haven't sought the limelight. Mignini is just someone doing his job, just as Knox is someone who got caught up in a horrible situation. So extra caution is needed to filter out the tabloid and tabloid-esque material.


 * What you seem to be saying about the porn star is that she is famous, but -- bearing in mind that this article is about him, not her -- is there anything about her prosecution that is significant for Mignini, in any serious sense? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The significance is that she was held without bail for 11 days and that he asked for a sentence of up to 10 years essentially for stripping. It made the news in Italy because of the parallels with the Knox case, i.e. a prosecutor that seems to have a thing about sexually charged cases, and the ongoing issue of detenzione cautelare or cautionary detention, e.g. throwing someone in jail who is not convicted, sometimes without a lawyer, as with Spezi and Knox before her. Based on this she said she 'felt like Knox' although that got cut out because it was the Sun source, although I think it is a true story. Dougbremner (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Personally I wouldn't include it, because the English-language media interest stemmed only from the Sun and other sources citing it. But I can see that it's a judgment call. Looking ahead, the best thing is not to rely on tabloid sources for living persons. I don't think we actually have that written down anywhere, but it's agreed to be best practice. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable outside of MOMK and MOF
I tried to find biographical info on him, in English as well as Italian, and all I could find is that he's a native Perugian about 61 years old. The defense lawyers and judges in this case seem much better known. Maybe one of the books has more details? Brmull (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a great deal of coverage about him in Preston's MOF book. I couldn't find any sources for early life, but he gave an interview to CNN which must have had over a million viewers in the US, so I think he passes the familiarity and notability smell test. Also he is known in Italy for appearing on a true crime type television show about the MOF in the 70s or 80s (MOF case is widely known in Italy). I think the MOF section needs editing because I don't think anyone was actually convicted. There were many people held in cautionary detention who were released when the killer struck again (released since they had obvious alibies). Dougbremner (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No this impression is not accurate. The MOF book by Preston is quite interesting and confirms that there were 4 convictions of local suspects, each conviction was overturned by the next arrest and conviction.--Mdukas (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am using sources which fit the WP:RS criteria of reliable, secondary sources which include newspapers with writers and editorial staffs that check and verify accuracy of content. Seattle Weekly is such a news source that migrated to online format but retained editorial staff, their "blogs" pieces are under this format and control and are to be distinguished from personal blogs or websites that are not WP:RS. Dougbremner (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's actually quite famous in Italy - mostly about harassing journalists - lots of articles in Panorama which is one of the largest magazines in Italy. Looking for consensus to remove the notability flag (please follow link and read guidelines for wikipedia notability). Dougbremner (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Requesting consensus for the removal of the notability banner and stub status based on international status of subject (interviewed on CNN, with multiple articles in the leading popular magazine in Italy Panorama), expansion of topic, and multiple secondary sources. Dougbremner (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC) See here for criteria of notability. Also seek consensus to move up in category from stub based on recent expansion (not sure of criteria or how to change that). Dougbremner (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is precisely the relationship between these two cases that justifies this BLP. In both cases there is repression of journalists, theories of Satanism born out of thin air and verdicts reversed. There is also the possibility that the MoMK trial and its more lurid elements were meant to distract from his trial for abuse of office in the MoF case. LindenWatterson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher
The article says:


 * Several conclusions regarding the Murder of Meredith Kercher have been validated overall by pre-trial, trial and appeal judges, including the Court of Cassation, which concluded that Rudy Guede was not the sole perpetrator of the murder.[38]

Some points about this:


 * The cited article does not actually claim this to be true. It merely says that "his defenders say his conclusions ... were validated by a variety of pre-trial, trial and appeal judges" etc... [my italics].


 * The claim that "the Court of Cassation concluded that Rudy Guede was not the sole perpetrator" seems to contradict what is written at Court of Cassation (Italy). Specifically: "The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence but can correct a lower court's interpretation or application of the law."  If that article is correct, the court has no power to rule on whether Guede was the sole perpetrator or not.


 * The Hellman-Zanetti Report (report of the appeal court that freed Knox and Sollecito) states :


 * Furthermore, it is the Corte di Cassazione itself, in the ruling cited by the General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties, which warns: “Thus right from the outset we must resist the attempt [...] to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute…”.


 * The Hellmann-Zanetti Report goes on to say: "However, analysis of each of the individual elements on which the conspiracy hypothesis rests leads one to doubt the necessary participation of more than one person in the commission of the crimes alleged."


 * And also: "It follows that the ruling in question [of the Court of Cassation], which we can accept with regard to the responsibility of Rudy Guede (which is certainly not undermined by regarding the single-actor hypothesis as the most reliable)"

So it seems that the appeal court clearly did not endorse the idea that Rudy Guede was not the sole perpetrator, and it looks pretty doubtful that the Court of Cassation did either (although I have not seen the full text of their judgement, and the quote above is perhaps slightly ambiguous).

I am minded to put a citation needed tag on this claim. Any thoughts?

TomH (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You could reformulate the sentence, adding proper source(s). Consider that 2 separate processes could be in slight contrast between them. Following relevant excerpts (in Italian) from the Cassazione Guede ruling.


 * «fluidità dell’incolpazione … nel senso che, se la sussistenza del grave quadro probatorio in ordine alla riferibilità all’indagato del fatto reato per il quale si indaga è suscettibile di precisazioni ed integrazioni, non è predicabile la necessità di una compiuta ed esaustiva definizione della condotta e dell’elemento psiclogico sin dal momento nel quale detta valutazione viene effettuata», il Collegio rilevava che «il quadro di gravi indizi necessari e sufficienti per affermare che all’indagato Guede fosse attribuibile il ruolo di concorrente nell’omicidio della giovane Meredith Kercher non doveva essere contraddisitinto, in ragione della peculiarità della fase, dalla compiuta configurazione delle modalità della condotta, essendo di contro soltanto necessario che fosse indiscutibile la sua compartecipazione –cosciente e volontaria- alla azione omicidiaria ed essendo indifferente, allo stato, l’accertamento del ruolo di autore o coautore materiale, di mandante, di istigatore, di consapevole “rafforzatore” attribuibile all’indagato»


 * «occorre da subito sfuggire al tentativo, perseguito dall’impostazione tutta della difesa, ma fuori luogo nel contesto della decisione, di coinvolgere il collegio nell’avallo della tesi di una responsabilità di altri, che sono Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Knox, per l’omicidio aggravato dalla violenza sessuale, di Meredith Kercher. La decisione a cui è chiamata questa Corte concerne, e solo, la responsabilità del Guede in ordine al fatto contestato e dell’eventuale partecipazione di altri al delitto si dovrà tener conto solo nella misura in cui una tale circostanza valga ad incidere sul tema che costituisce l’impegno esclusivo in punto di riforma o conferma della declaratoria di responsabilità dell’imputato, quest’ultima del tutto condivisa dai giudici di primo e secondo grado»


 * «Una volta esclusa la sussistenza della prova di colpevolezza a carico degli attuali imputati non spetta invero a questa Corte prospettare quale possa essere stato il reale svolgimento della vicenda né se l’autore del reato sia stato uno o più di uno né se siano state o meno trascurate altre ipotesi investigative. Quello che rileva ai fini della decisione è soltanto la mancanza di prova di colpevolezza degli attuali imputati»
 * Source: https://www.archiviopenale.it/joomla/images/stories/dossier/2012_Astarita_dossier.pdf Cassazione, Sez. I, 1 aprile 2008, Guede

--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't understand Italian, and Google translator does such a bad job with this text, that I cannot really get an accurate idea of what these two quotes say. The text I quoted was from a translation of the Hellman-Zanetti Report on Wordpress - http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/

From the Hellman-Zanetti report my impression was that the appeal court concluded as follows: there is no evidence to prove that anyone else (other than Guede) was involved; and the "single-actor hypothesis" is the most likely. I am not absolutely certain of this... perhaps something is lost in the translation.

I also think it likely that the Court of Cassation took no position on this question (whether there were multiple perpetrators). In other words, that the court neither validated or disputed that claim. Although I am less sure of this, since my only source is a single quote from the (translated) Hellman-Zanetti report.

Thanks for providing these Italian quotes... but due to the language barrier, they don't really help me make sense of it. And I certainly cannot understand them well enough to cite them as a source. :)

TomH (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is Italian Legalese not so clear also for me. I interpreted the texts as that Cassazione was interested only in facts that could influence their ruling about Guede. They found Guede guilty on the ground of the first 2 judiciary grades, e.g. his admitted and proofs confirmed presence in the house the night of the murder and contacts with the victim. However they didnt determine at wich level Guede was responsible, if the physical perpetrator (author or co-author), if the mandator or the istigator. Cassation didnt exclude that there were multiple perpetrators, but it seems they didnt endorse any position because it wasn't its duty. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition/reliable sources
Someone keeps removing injusticeinperugia stuff as an unreliable source. I have restored it, and added other sources. This is with regard to the satellite prosecutions Mignini brought in relation to the main Amanda Knox/Raffalel Sollecito trial. 70.70.249.154 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * InjusticePerugia is a personal blog and far from being a reliable source, especially in a BLP. I will therefore remove again what is sourced to that site and ask you not to use such sources in the future. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. 70.70.249.154 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this really worthy of Wikipedia?
This whole page is a thinly-veiled attack, epitomized by quoting Doug Preston letting loose on Mignini: "this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's obsessed with satanic sects." There are two ways we can deal with this. (1) Quote Mignini trashing Preston and Spezi, and (2) delete the article as non-notable, non-NPOV, and BLP violation. I support the latter. Brmull (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Shocking - this turned into an attack piece. Never, ever could I possibly have imagined that.  Not in a million years.  Nope.  Couldn't see that coming.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * another hint of unreliability is the suggested correlation between the Monster of Florence and the Murder of Meredith Kercher cases. Satanism references in the Monster of Florence are to be interpreted as an accusatory hypothesis about the eventual presence of a sect or a freemasonry fanatical lodge as the mandator of the murders for their rituals (all the female victims corpses were seized and mutilated of their most erogenous zones). In the Murder of Meredith Kercher the hypothesis of a ritualistic orgy inspired by popular culture mangas was very soon, in the early stages of the inquiry, replaced with a sex game gone wrong theory. Hence the link between the two on Satanism is overrated and seems to me a WP:Coatrack to further the speculation of a bigot prosecutor gone mad. Maybe he wasnt so professional during his career, maybe he did big mistakes, but here Mignini is portrayed very badly.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are saying things that are just not true. He presented the Satanism theory in the trial of Amanda Knox.  Not that it matters much since others have removed this from the article, but your statements are very suspicious.PStrait (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. Preston may be right or wrong about Mignini, we don't decide that here. I don't agree that "quoting Mignini trashing Preston" would solve any problems at all.  It might raise questions about whether Preston is right or wrong or not, but that is not the point.  Preston was interviewed on national TV, and he expressed his opinion and it is presented as his opinion.  That's a fact and is sourced.  Lots of other people have questioned Mignini too, that is a fact.  Preston might be biased, but that is not exactly a "fact" that can be sourced.  So I don't agree with either of the alternatives presented above by Brmull.  I would vote for a "third way." (--Mdukas (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC))
 * PPS: Hey, I just reread the article, and in the paragraph BEFORE the Preston quote, there is ALREADY a comment from Mignini casting doubt on his accusers in general and Preston in particular. So, it seems like it (Brmull's complaint) has been handled already.  (--Mdukas (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC))
 * OR, you might read Mignini's comments about "well organized" campaign against him, to be "fair" or wacky "conspiracy theory." What is that quote about "just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are NOT after you"...(--Mdukas (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Hmmm, I seem to remember nominating this article for deletion on these grounds already. Consensus was to keep it (the final decision noted that the article should be allowed to remain for "a couple of months" to see if reliable bio information appears). Personally I would remove the Douglas Preston bit as he is not exactly a neutral commentator on Mignini given their history. In my opinion, I still don't think this article is compliant with WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, but the orginal deletion discussion for some reason became a discourse on his notability. (Connolly15 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I live in the US (so I don't follow the Italian press on these cases) but I did read the Monster of Florence book by Preston and co-author. It is a very interesting book and has quite a bit of information about the apparently "Keystone Kops" sort of police work done in that case.  Poor police work did possibly (or probably?) contribute to the serial killer(s) being able to continue to kill people, which seems significant and interesting.  There is also quite a bit in that book about the questionable tactics and behavior of Mignini and his prosecution of multiple suspects for the "Monster" murders, with seemingly little evidence to implicate those suspects as being involved in the crime.  Four people were convicted, then released when it turned out that they were exonerated.  [Is not "bad" behavior by government bodies worthy of documentation?]  Maybe by itself the Monster/Mignini situation is just a footnote to history; but then it turned out that Mignini also wound up to the prosecutor in one of the other most famous murder cases in Italy, and again he seems to have exhibited strange behavior; getting a conviction, that again was overturned and, oh, by the way, the murderer in that case (whomever it is/was) also has not been successfully found and convicted.  Apart from the the lesser issue of the competence or lack by competence of Mignini, these cases do raise a significant question of how is the Italian criminal justice system conducted; what sort of checks and balances are there (or are lacking); both on the prosecutorial side, as well as on the investigative / police work side.  Very similar questions were raised in both the Monster and Kercher cases, which I think is pretty interesting.  (Especially if you happen to be charged with a crime in Italy.)  (By the way, I recommend the Preston book to skeptics or those wanting to learn more. As for whether Mignini's role in all of this rises to the "high" standards of notability for Wikipedia, that is another question. There has been fervent debate on Wikipedia about those standards, but I tuned out of that debate because I thought it was boring and pretentious and arbitrary, so I can't express a knowledgeable opinion about whether he does or does not rise to whatever those standards of "significance" might now be, if they are clearly defined.  I do think he is interesting however, because of how he appears to be a symbol or example of some problems in the criminal justice system in Italy.  (Plus, like "Zelig" and "Forrest Gump" he seems to show up in the midst of interesting cases.  I vote to keep (are we voting again?)--Mdukas (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have not been following the Kercher case, so I looked at the extensive Wikipedia article about that for the first time just now. Interestingly, there are some references at the end of that article to Mignini and doubts about the Italian criminal justice system (I will cut and paste that part of the article below).  I believe that since Mignini is referenced significantly there, it makes sense to have this article about him in place as well.  (It should be "fair and balanced" of course, but (IMHO) it is appropriate to have an article about Mignini.  Here is the stuff from the Kercher article that seemed relevant. (--Mdukas (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

On 10 May 2011, "Perugia Shock", a blog about the case written by Italian blogger Frank Sfarzo, who was highly critical of prosecutor Mignini's conduct in the Kercher case, was shut down by court order. The order was granted by a Florence court to Mignini on the grounds of alleged calunnia.[190] The Committee to Protect Journalists wrote to the Italian government protesting the action.[191] The blog's content was later restored on a new host.[192]

On 26 May 2011, 11 members of the Italian parliament, led by Rocco Girlanda and all members of The People of Freedom Party founded by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, issued a document as an act of parliament addressed to Justice Minister Angelino Alfano. The document criticized the evidence that resulted in the Knox/Sollecito guilty verdicts, and the extended detention to which they were subject.[193] Girlanda also addressed a letter to President Giorgio Napolitano, in Girlanda's capacity as president of the Italy-USA Foundation, in which he wrote, "These distortions, not without reason, are fuelling accusations against the administration of justice in our country."[194]


 * Hi Mdukas. Thanks for your comments.  I would just say though that you seem to be focussing a lot on whether or not Mignini is notable.  This was also the problem with the original deletion request.  I don't think the concern here is notability, but that the article is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP.  Presenting information about the individual in a Neutral Point of View is key to this policy, and having comments from one of the individual's biggest critics (i.e. Douglas Preston) without any balance (i.e. Mignini has a lot to say about him as well) is not neutral.  The problem is that to make it neutral, we should effectively either add Mignini's comments about Preston (not a great article in my opinion) or remove Preston as a source (at a minimum we shouldn't be quoting him). (Connolly15 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I've taken another stab at adding more background to the Narducci case, removed quote from Preston attacking Mignini (it's undue weight to his opinion of him anyway) (WP:NPF) and removed the connection between the trial theories of the two cases (per comments above, and frankly, it was poorly sourced to begin with: an opinion piece and a crime show). Sorry for all the Italian sources, but unsurprisingly it is the only source that really deals in any detail with the Narducci case (given the American media never actually covered the investigation).  I would add that if you read the (extensive) Italian Wikipedia article on the subject, it doesn't have any mention of satanic theories connected to the Narducci case either. (Connolly15 (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Hi again. As you say, I was primarily focused on the question of whether Mignini is notable, as triggered by the question from Brmull about whether the article should be deleted as "non-notable, non-NPOV and BLP violation".  That is a bundle of 3 separate charges or questions and I was primarily reacting to the question(s) of potential deletion and "non-notable".  If we agree that he is notable (and interesting) then the article needs to be cleaned up to be fair and neutral and factual.  I note the recent edits to remove some of Preston's comments. I can see why this might be correct, those comments are facts (i.e. he did say them) but they are also opinions (i.e. his conclusions and characterizations are opinions and harsh).  Anyway, I do think Preston's comments are interesting (and informed by some personal experience, perhaps leading to bias), but maybe don't belong in Wikipedia, I can see that argument.  Anybody who is interested can read his book.  I don't speak or read Italian so unfortunately I can't read the "extensive Italian Wikipedia article on the subject (of Narducci), (but that case is mentioned in the Preston book, so I have read about it some there (FWIW).  Anyway, this article on M. is hopefully getting better as we go along with input from different points of view, with thoughtful editing.  Incidentally, I did follow the early battles in the the whole BLP debate and the mass deletion war.  It seemed (to me) to be a strange, unfortunate and damaging episode for Wikipedia editors.  Living people are important and often I use Wikipedia to learn about living people rather than dead people.  Of course the BLPs should be fair but I (personally) don't think they should be subject to mass or quick deletion just for being BLPs.  I feel this way partly because they are useful, because I don't feel its fair for articles to be judged "guilty until proven innocent" (of bias) and partly because they reflect lots of effort by different editors (who are usually well intentioned).  But requiring BLPs to meet clear standards of objectivity and being fact-based, seems fair to me (and that applies to Mignini's article here) and so thanks for doing your part to make sure this article meets the standards of fairness.--Mdukas (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and I agree with your comments - the original deletion nomination was only made after (unsuccessfully) raising the issue on the talkpage and spending quite a bit of time trying to find sources for his biographical background (of which there is apparently only one currently in the article, offline and I dont' have access to). If you check the history you will see the original article as written was not to the standard required of a BLP.  Hopefully more reliable sources can be found which add to the subject's biography and makes it even more interesting for readers.  The key I think is to present a neutral point of view - citing criticsm is of course justified (the article already mentions Preston's criticisms of him) - but the guidelines for its use are very clear on this:  "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." The opinion is biased (as you say) and the quote given was malicious. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Mignini's belief that the murders of the Monster of Florence involved the collection of body parts for ritualistic rites (whether Satanic or masonic) was well sourced and the connection with his view that the Kercher murder involved a ritualistic murder was also well sourced and it was part of Mignini's original brief which Comodi later talked him out of including. Just because he later denied it is irrelevant. Connolly15 you have previously brought up the issue that if something is not in the Italian wikipedia article that it should not be included here, but that is not relevant. The article was previously nominated for deletion based on notability and the consensus was for retention - you can read it here. Removing the relevant link of satanism/masonic cults as informing the theory of crime of those two cases was unjustified and should be returned. Dougbremner (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my opinions, I never said that (or brought it up as you suggest). You are wrong, I nominated the article under WP:NOTSCANDAL as is demonstrated by what you linked to, not notability.  The information you asked to be "returned" is still given prominence in the article, all that has been removed is a sentence which drew a (controversial, poorly sourced) direct correlation between the two theories as if they were one and the same.  The reader is now given the information and can draw their own conclusions. Connolly15 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The allegation that Mignini put forward a motive of Satanic ritual orgy is false. It is just an example of egregiously false information that brings down the credibility of the whole page. Unbalance created by extensive reports of Preston's "story" further distorts the whole thing and manipuates Wikiedia in a shameful fashion. This is embarassing for Wikipedia. Aki 001 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)