ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 10th July 2018, 11:28 AM   #801
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
AIUI the owner of the site, Michael, hasn't been heard of for about two years, leaving a couple of other volunteers to run the site in the meantime. As they are unable to contact him to get the error fixed, the site has gone down.
Thanks for the info.

It makes that PMF split in March 2011 not just ludicrous and puerile, but devastating to the "let's persecute two innocents in memory of the original victim" movement. They fell over each other to utter to most vile ad hominems thinking that that was the way to honour murder victims, and then they squabbled amongst themselves over who cared for Kercher the most.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...hp?f=20&t=1653

ETA - It was a coffee-through-the-nose snorter back then to read the vitriol aimed at one another. One of the .NET posters went as far to claim that the .ORG moderator actually worked for the David Marriott PR firm!!!

We ran out of popcorn watching the thieves fall out with one another.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th July 2018 at 11:33 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 02:13 PM   #802
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Thanks for the info.

It makes that PMF split in March 2011 not just ludicrous and puerile, but devastating to the "let's persecute two innocents in memory of the original victim" movement. They fell over each other to utter to most vile ad hominems thinking that that was the way to honour murder victims, and then they squabbled amongst themselves over who cared for Kercher the most.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...hp?f=20&t=1653

ETA - It was a coffee-through-the-nose snorter back then to read the vitriol aimed at one another. One of the .NET posters went as far to claim that the .ORG moderator actually worked for the David Marriott PR firm!!!

We ran out of popcorn watching the thieves fall out with one another.
Oh, Bill...you're being too cynical. It was all for Meredith, dontcha know?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 02:52 PM   #803
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
AIUI the owner of the site, Michael, hasn't been heard of for about two years, leaving a couple of other volunteers to run the site in the meantime. As they are unable to contact him to get the error fixed, the site has gone down.
I seem to recall Michael had some serious medical issues. While I truly disliked the guy I do hope he is well.

As an aside, the guy left in charge was none other than the Messiah himself. You'd think he could fix it with a wave of his hand. Unless he's a fraud??... oh, say it ain't so!
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:25 PM   #804
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I need to repeat kudos to Peggy Ganong on one issue, though. The only time I ever saw Ganong moderate an ad hominem aimed at Amanda Knox, was when a poster had referred to the latter as a "slut".

Despite all the other vitriol on .ORG, once Ganong was solidly in control of it (post-March 2011) the "s" word was the one place she did not allow her users to go. Not even when used against Knox. I've had private PM's with many, many of the usual suspects on that side of the fence, but never with Ganong. If I were ever to have one with her, high on my list of inquiries would be why she drew the line where she had.


Oh I suspect I know, Bill. That "s" word is total anathema to anyone who holds/espouses strongly feminist views. And I therefore suspect that, to Ganong, any use of that nasty anti-female word overrode the feelings of personal animosity that she felt (and expressed) against Knox. To her, to allow the use of the "s" word - even against Knox - would have seemed like a betrayal of the sisterhood.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 06:36 PM   #805
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh I suspect I know, Bill. That "s" word is total anathema to anyone who holds/espouses strongly feminist views. And I therefore suspect that, to Ganong, any use of that nasty anti-female word overrode the feelings of personal animosity that she felt (and expressed) against Knox. To her, to allow the use of the "s" word - even against Knox - would have seemed like a betrayal of the sisterhood.
I have no idea why Ganong nixed the s-word, even when used against Knox. I'm not sure we'll ever know now that both PMF's are gone.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 08:45 AM   #806
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Was the word "tramp" still allowed by Ganong?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:39 AM   #807
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Was the word "tramp" still allowed by Ganong?
I used to follow the "innocentisi Tuesdays" that .NET once hosted, as well as contributed to the "Today at PMF" thread at IIP (which still exists) that paralleled it. That was a long time ago.

As for Ganong and .ORG I stopped even the periodic check-ins there at about the same time. I have no memory of anyone using the word "tramp" specifically, although there was some vitriolic word-choice, esp. in relation to Knox.

It's all history now.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 11:43 AM   #808
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I used to follow the "innocentisi Tuesdays" that .NET once hosted, as well as contributed to the "Today at PMF" thread at IIP (which still exists) that paralleled it. That was a long time ago.

As for Ganong and .ORG I stopped even the periodic check-ins there at about the same time. I have no memory of anyone using the word "tramp" specifically, although there was some vitriolic word-choice, esp. in relation to Knox.

It's all history now.
.PMF and . ORG may be history, but the vitriol against AK especially continues. One of the worst places is Truecrimepodcasts hosted by, imo, some real whackos. This was posted by "Travis" just last February:

Quote:
One reason Knox gets these speaking gigs is that she has gone full feminist and leftist which places her in alignment with ‘oppressed’ groups, that is, women, minorities, homosexuals, and those unjustly convicted. These groups sponsor and pay her for a recitation of her oppression at the hands of the Italian justice process while ignoring the mountain of evidence against her. She was not convicted because of her slutty ways or male oppression.

Knox has an internet TV program whose theme is condemnation of those who shame women for being so called ‘sluts’. Probably hits home to Knox. I believe this was the basis for the conflict between her and Meredith. While Meredith seemingly was ‘straight-laced’, she was not a prude and she apparently demanded some commitment, affection, and emotional attachment from her partner before sex. Knox was the opposite.
https://truecrimespodcasts.com/2018/...ness/#comments

I found the last bit about what Travis says regarding Meredith interesting. "Straight-laced" but not "a prude" yet she was, according to the British girls, offended by a small pink bunny vibrator being visible in a transparent cosmetic bag in the bathroom. I've always thought that whole story was a load of nonsense that the British girls twisted into something it was not when they believed Knox killed their friend. I doubt Meredith did more than mention it in passing as a funny story.

The other thing Travis says that that I find a good example of the "good girl/ bad girl" roles that the guilters cast M and A in respectively is that M had to have "some commitment, affection, and emotional attachment from her partner before sex." Nothing in M's relationship with Silenzi indicates there was any "commitment" or "emotional attachment" from him. He bragged about very private sexual things with M to his friends. He never took her out on a date. Silenzi told reporters that he "liked her" but wasn't "jealous about her". I interpret that as he didn't care if she saw other men. Follain wrote that Giacomo ignored Meredith when they met in public and that Meredith complained about how he only treated her as a "friend". Yet Silenzi's friend, Marzan, said that he thought "(Silenzi) was more into it (the relationship) than she was".

We really don't know what Meredith's pre-Italy sex life was other than she was not a virgin (nor should we care), but this portrayal of her as the innocent "good girl" is due to the need to contrast her to Amanda's "bad girl" role. Travis' post demonstrates this very well.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:10 PM   #809
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
We really don't know what Meredith's pre-Italy sex life was other than she was not a virgin (nor should we care), but this portrayal of her as the innocent "good girl" is due to the need to contrast her to Amanda's "bad girl" role. Travis' post demonstrates this very well.
Travis assumed that everyone who's met Knox is both stupid and does not have internet of their own - basically that they are hostage to what Knox (and the Mafia-Media-Masonic conspiracy) tells them.

Travis also assumes that no one has ever had access to the guilter-PR effort which once included 4 websites and an active leafleting of many of the events Knox spoke at.

This is all to be considered before Travis's bizarre version of the slut/Madonna spectrum the haters have always operated from. For Pete's sake, acc. to Knox it was Meredith who told her that perhaps uncommitted sex was not for her. That's exceedingly normal conversation between friends that age.

As it always has been, Travis is trying too hard to conjure up a psychosexual theory to justify his biases rather than be led by the evidence. He probably thinks that Cassazione had not exonerated the pair in 2015.

As an aside, one should read the Wikipedia Italian language version of "The murder of Meredith Kercher". The machine translation makes it clear that Cassazione did, in fact, acquit in 2015.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 11th July 2018 at 12:13 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:01 PM   #810
HumanityBlues
Graduate Poster
 
HumanityBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
AIUI the owner of the site, Michael, hasn't been heard of for about two years, leaving a couple of other volunteers to run the site in the meantime. As they are unable to contact him to get the error fixed, the site has gone down.
That's because Michael died two years ago. I am amazed this thread is still here.....
HumanityBlues is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:21 PM   #811
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
The relevance of the events of this article* to the Knox - Sollecito case, and especially the conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba: 1) a police officer manipulates - escalates - a situation (traffic stop) in an attempt to get an arrest, although the potential arrestee is clearly innocent; 2) the motivation for the attempt to obtain an arrest, an unnamed expert claims, is that each arrest is a positive for an officer's record and career; 3) the officer's superiors and the prosecutor not only cover for the officer but retaliate against the potential arrestee for filing a complaint.

In the Knox case, the Gemelli CSC panel specifically states that her interrogation statements may be used against her for calunnia because she wrote a "defensive" memo in English, which in fact, stated that she had been coerced - including by slaps - to make the interrogation statements by the police. Furthermore: 1) her parents were accused of defamation for telling a news reporter - Follian - that Amanda Knox had been coerced and slapped by the police; and 2) Knox was charged with calunnia against the police and prosecutor for stating in open court that she had been coerced and slapped by the police. Knox was acquitted by the Boninsegna court for this charge of calunnia against the police; the Boninsegna motivation report stated that Knox had not committed the crime of calunnia against the police because there was no proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not believe that she had been subject to coercion, and indeed her defense rights had been illegally infringed, in violation of the Italian Constitution.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d231e0c48617
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:28 PM   #812
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The relevance of the events of this article* to the Knox - Sollecito case, and especially the conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba: 1) a police officer manipulates - escalates - a situation (traffic stop) in an attempt to get an arrest, although the potential arrestee is clearly innocent; 2) the motivation for the attempt to obtain an arrest, an unnamed expert claims, is that each arrest is a positive for an officer's record and career; 3) the officer's superiors and the prosecutor not only cover for the officer but retaliate against the potential arrestee for filing a complaint.

In the Knox case, the Gemelli CSC panel specifically states that her interrogation statements may be used against her for calunnia because she wrote a "defensive" memo in English, which in fact, stated that she had been coerced - including by slaps - to make the interrogation statements by the police. Furthermore: 1) her parents were accused of defamation for telling a news reporter - Follian - that Amanda Knox had been coerced and slapped by the police; and 2) Knox was charged with calunnia against the police and prosecutor for stating in open court that she had been coerced and slapped by the police. Knox was acquitted by the Boninsegna court for this charge of calunnia against the police; the Boninsegna motivation report stated that Knox had not committed the crime of calunnia against the police because there was no proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not believe that she had been subject to coercion, and indeed her defense rights had been illegally infringed, in violation of the Italian Constitution.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d231e0c48617
Luckily for the man in the article, there was a video showing quite clearly that the police officer's account of the encounter was false and the victim was telling the truth. I still strongly suspect that the Perugia police either deliberately did not record the interrogations knowing their tactics were illegal or they did video them and destroyed them afterwards for the same reason. There is no logical reason for them not have recorded them otherwise. And only fools believe the "we didn't have the budget" excuse.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:20 PM   #813
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by HumanityBlues View Post
That's because Michael died two years ago. I am amazed this thread is still here.....

Really? That's sad to hear. I mean I fundamentally disagreed with the man's views on this case (and often despised the way he expressed them and allowed others to express them), and he banned me from .org (as was) in a nasty summary manner in which he actually used a swear word as the "reason" for my ban.... but nonetheless it's a shame he's died.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:23 PM   #814
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
And regarding the thread still being here, it's in a sort of semi-suspended-animation really (as it should be). There actually are still genuinely significant loose ends to be tied up in this case, the biggest of which is Knox's application to the ECHR (and what may happen if the ECHR ultimately rules in her favour). And of course the other factor limiting the thread's slowdown into full-on suspended animation is the continued "input" of one particular individual, which is at once both amusing and saddening at the same time.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:52 PM   #815
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by HumanityBlues
That's because Michael died two years ago. I am amazed this thread is still here.....
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And regarding the thread still being here, it's in a sort of semi-suspended-animation really (as it should be). There actually are still genuinely significant loose ends to be tied up in this case, the biggest of which is Knox's application to the ECHR (and what may happen if the ECHR ultimately rules in her favour). And of course the other factor limiting the thread's slowdown into full-on suspended animation is the continued "input" of one particular individual, which is at once both amusing and saddening at the same time.
Last count, this thread is down 93% in both postings and views from its highest, which was the days after the 2015 Cassazione acquittals. It's hard to believe that even when there was a full-throated guilter presence here (and when the force of gravity seemed to be on their side) it never got as busy as the weeks after March 2015.

The Marasca/Bruno acquital drew 157 pots per day. The Nencini conviction period drew over 160 posts per day.

Perhaps the argument should be - not so much that it is a trickle now, but that it shouldn't have been all that busy/controversial then!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 11th July 2018 at 07:14 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 08:14 PM   #816
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Here is a May, 2016 article from Il Messaggero about the April, 2016 communication to Italy of Knox v. Italy.

Meredith, Italia sotto accusa a Strasburgo per Amanda: «Maltrattata in interrogatorio»
La Corte europea dei diritti umani ha accolto in via preliminare il ricorso contro l'Italia presentato da Amanda Knox, la ragazza prosciolta in Cassazione dall'accusa di aver partecipato all'uccisione di Meredith Kercher.

La giovane sostiene di aver subito un processo iniquo e di essere stata maltrattata durante l'interrogatorio. La Corte di Strasburgo ha ritenuto valido il dossier presentato dai legali della Knox ed ha comunicato il ricorso al governo italiano affinchè possa difendersi.

«È ora che la gente cominci ad aprire gli occhi su questa vicenda»: Raffaele Sollecito commenta così la decisione della Corte europea dei diritti umani che ha ammesso il ricorso di Amanda Knox. Lo fa rispondendo all'Ansa. «Amanda - ha detto Sollecito - è stata sentita per 15 ore senza avvocato e con un'interprete non ufficiale. Ci sono stati abusi mai rilevati mediaticamente e meno male che ci sono giudici che danno la giusta importanza a quanto successo».

Sollecito ha quindi ricordato «gli otto anni di processi subiti da due ragazzi innocenti». «A livello mediatico - ha aggiunto - è passata la nostra demonizzazione. La descrizione di due persone che non sono mai esiste nella realtà e sono del tutto estranee alla morte di quella povera ragazza. Per questo - ha concluso Sollecito - non mi stancherò mai di denunciare quanto successo».

Martedì 17 Maggio 2016

Source: https://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopia...a-1739375.html


Meredith: Italy accused in Strasbourg by Amanda: "Abused in interrogation"

The European Court of Human Rights has preliminarily accepted the application against Italy presented by Amanda Knox, the girl acquitted by the Supreme Court of the accusation of having participated in the killing of Meredith Kercher.

The young woman claims to have undergone an unfair trial and to have been mistreated during the interrogation. The Court of Strasbourg found the dossier submitted by Knox's lawyers to be valid and notified the Italian government of the application so that it can defend itself.

“It is time for people to open their eyes to this matter": Raffaele Sollecito commented on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that admitted the application of Amanda Knox. He did this by responding to {a request for comments from the Italian press agency} Ansa. “Amanda” - Sollecito said - “was heard for 15 hours without a lawyer and with an unofficial interpreter. There have been abuses never detected by the media and thank goodness there are judges {of the ECHR} who give due importance to what happened”.

Sollecito then recalled "the eight years of trials suffered by two innocent youths". "At the media level” - he added - “our demonization has passed. The description of two people who never existed in reality and are completely unrelated to the death of that poor girl. For this” - concluded Sollecito - “I will never tire of denouncing what happened”.

Tuesday 17 May 2016

From: Il Messaggero

Translation by Google translate with my help.

Last edited by Numbers; 11th July 2018 at 08:21 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 05:40 AM   #817
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
.
.
.
“It is time for people to open their eyes to this matter": Raffaele Sollecito commented on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that admitted the application of Amanda Knox. He did this by responding to {a request for comments from the Italian press agency} Ansa. “Amanda” - Sollecito said - “was heard for 15 hours without a lawyer and with an unofficial interpreter. There have been abuses never detected by the media and thank goodness there are judges {of the ECHR} who give due importance to what happened”.

Sollecito then recalled "the eight years of trials suffered by two innocent youths". "At the media level” - he added - “our demonization has passed. The description of two people who never existed in reality and are completely unrelated to the death of that poor girl. For this” - concluded Sollecito - “I will never tire of denouncing what happened”.
.
.
.

Very, very powerful summation by Sollecito
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 06:53 AM   #818
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Numbers
“It is time for people to open their eyes to this matter": Raffaele Sollecito commented on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that admitted the application of Amanda Knox. He did this by responding to {a request for comments from the Italian press agency} Ansa. “Amanda” - Sollecito said - “was heard for 15 hours without a lawyer and with an unofficial interpreter. There have been abuses never detected by the media and thank goodness there are judges {of the ECHR} who give due importance to what happened”.

Sollecito then recalled "the eight years of trials suffered by two innocent youths". "At the media level” - he added - “our demonization has passed. The description of two people who never existed in reality and are completely unrelated to the death of that poor girl. For this” - concluded Sollecito - “I will never tire of denouncing what happened”.
Originally Posted by sept79 View Post
Very, very powerful summation by Sollecito
Quite. Sollecito faces a different issue in Italy. He's said that Italians tend to vilify any famous person, not even so much because of the villainy that they were once associated with.

Even doing a cursory survey of 2018 Italian views of the murder in Perugia in 2007 shows that nearly all are onside wit actual innocence of the pair. The Italian language Wikipedia page on this was a bit of a surprise for how blunt it is as to their innocence.

The road to recovery of reputation for both has nothing to do with Rudy Guede's heinous act. Strangley, there have been some who try to repair Guede's reputation, and State TV has played a role in that. It has never really gained traction, which is good to see.

But the challenges Sollecito faces in Italy has to do with his notoriety, not the case per se.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 07:23 AM   #819
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Here's an Italian media article which, while noting a decrease in the amounts of money Italy must expend for violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, includes a reference to Knox v. Italy:

From: http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/norme...C&refresh_ce=1

6 settembre 2017
corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo
Indennizzi per la violazione dei diritti umani, crollo delle multe all’Italia: da 77 a 16 milioni
Un deciso cambio di rotta che ha portato a una netta diminuzione dell’importo degli indennizzi che l’Italia è tenuta a versare alle vittime di violazioni della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo commesse a livello nazionale e accertate da Strasburgo. Dai 77 milioni di euro versati nel 2015, l’Italia è scesa a quasi 16 milioni nel 2016 (erano poco più di 5 nel 2014). Un dato positivo, quello che risulta dalla relazione annuale sull’esecuzione delle pronunce della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo nei confronti dell’Italia presentata il 1° settembre 2017, con riferimento al 2016, dal Dipartimento per gli affari giuridici e legislativi della Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri.

L’Italia ha visto anche una diminuzione dei ricorsi pendenti scendendo dal quarto al sesto posto e, per quanto riguarda le sentenze, Roma migliora di ben 5 posizioni la situazione in classifica: 15 le sentenze di condanna che portano fuori l’Italia dalla classifica dei primi dieci Stati con il maggior numero di condanne. Dato positivo, l’indice di ricambio superiore al 93%: in pratica, i procedimenti chiusi sono stati 2.730, un numero di gran lunga superiore rispetto ai nuovi ricorsi assegnati a una formazione giudiziaria (1.409). Questo - si legge nella relazione - vuol dire che il volume dei ricorsi pendenti è pari a 6.180 casi, con un decremento del 18,33% rispetto al 2015 (7.567), anno che già aveva portato a un abbattimento del contenzioso pendente del 50% rispetto al 2014 (14.400 ricorsi pendenti).

….

Per quanto riguarda i ricorsi pendenti di più grande rilievo sono segnalati il caso Berlusconi relativo alla legge Severino in materia di incandidabilità; il ricorso Sallusti sulla previsione del carcere per i giornalisti in caso di diffamazione; i ricorsi sul danno all’ambiente e alla salute relativi all’Ilva, nonché il ricorso di Amanda Knox per le limitazioni del diritto di difesa.


September 6, 2017
A decisive change of course that has led to a sharp reduction in the amount of compensation that Italy is required to pay to victims of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights committed at national level and verified by Strasbourg. From the 77 million euros paid in 2015, Italy fell to almost 16 million in 2016 (they were just over 5 in 2014). A positive result, what emerges from the annual report on the execution of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights against Italy presented on 1 September 2017, with reference to 2016, by the Department for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

Italy has also seen a decrease in applications pending from the fourth to sixth place and, as regards the judgments, Rome improves the situation in the ranking of 5 positions: 15 sentences of condemnation that lead Italy out of the ranking of first ten states with the highest number of convictions. On a positive note, the turnover index was over 93%: in practice, the closed proceedings were 2,730, a far greater number than the new applications assigned to judicial training (1,409). This - we read in the report - means that the volume of pending applications is equal to 6,180 cases, with a decrease of 18.33% compared to 2015 (7,567), a year that had already led to a reduction in the pending litigation of 50% compared to 2014 (14,400 applications pending).
....

These are the pending applications of greater significance reported {by the ECHR}: the Berlusconi case concerning the Severino law regarding ineligibility for office; the application of Sallusti on the sentence of prison for journalists in a case of defamation; applications alleging damage to the environment and health related to Ilva, as well as the application of Amanda Knox regarding the limitations of the right of defense {in her conviction for calunnia}.
_____

For balance, it should be pointed out that there has been a large increase in cases (applications) from certain eastern European countries, which has also helped decrease the relative number of cases (applications) from Italy.
___
Translation by Google translate with my help.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th July 2018 at 07:25 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:26 AM   #820
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Quote:
The European Court of Human Rights has preliminarily accepted the application against Italy presented by Amanda Knox, the girl acquitted by the Supreme Court of the accusation of having participated in the killing of Meredith Kercher.

The young woman claims to have undergone an unfair trial and to have been mistreated during the interrogation. The Court of Strasbourg found the dossier submitted by Knox's lawyers to be valid and notified the Italian government of the application so that it can defend itself.
So much for the May 24, 2018 claim by TJMK that "Knox apologists still repost Dalla Vedova’s wrong claim that the ECHR has already “accepted” Knox’s case. It has not," and "Four and a half years down the line and still no decision as to the admissibility of Knox’s ECHR application." The article in Il Messaggero was published a full two years before TJMK's false claim, where they also accused the BBC of "being wrong" when they reported the same thing.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:17 AM   #821
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So much for the May 24, 2018 claim by TJMK that "Knox apologists still repost Dalla Vedova’s wrong claim that the ECHR has already “accepted” Knox’s case. It has not," and "Four and a half years down the line and still no decision as to the admissibility of Knox’s ECHR application." The article in Il Messaggero was published a full two years before TJMK's false claim, where they also accused the BBC of "being wrong" when they reported the same thing.
Peter Quennell lied!? Say it ain't so!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:27 AM   #822
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So much for the May 24, 2018 claim by TJMK that "Knox apologists still repost Dalla Vedova’s wrong claim that the ECHR has already “accepted” Knox’s case. It has not," and "Four and a half years down the line and still no decision as to the admissibility of Knox’s ECHR application." The article in Il Messaggero was published a full two years before TJMK's false claim, where they also accused the BBC of "being wrong" when they reported the same thing.
There are obvious misrepresentations and lies by the guilters regarding the ECHR application and many other aspects of the case.

The ECHR has indeed accepted Amanda Knox's application; the evidence for that is that it was communicated to Italy - to allow Italy to formulate a defense - in April, 2016. Communication of a case by the ECHR means that, insofar as the ECHR can determine at the time of the communication, the case and each claim conveyed in the communication is admissible.

Now, an allowed defense by the respondent state (Italy) is a counter-claim that an application or individual claims in an application are not admissible. The respondent state must indicate any such counter-claim of inadmissibility in its initial response to the communication.

Since there has been no ECHR decision of inadmissibility listed in HUDOC for the case of Knox v. Italy or any claim of that case, it must be understood that the case and all its claims remain pending the ECHR's judgment on the merits. That judgment will include, based on ECHR's usual practice, a decision on the admissibility of each claim listing any counter-claim on admissibility for that claim by Italy, the response by the applicant (Knox), and the ECHR's evaluation. For the claims listed in the Country Profile for Italy summary of Knox v. Italy, it is unlikely that there would be any claim decided inadmissible by the ECHR, as long as each claim was repeated in substance in the final domestic appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel, or had been previously finalized, for example, by the Gemelli CSC panel.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th July 2018 at 10:31 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:07 AM   #823
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Peter Quennell lied!? Say it ain't so!
I'm not so sure it's a case of "lying" as the (few remaining) main posters/contributors on TJMK are so far down the rabbit hole that I suspect they really believe it. They have an uncanny ability to see only what they want /need to see.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:24 AM   #824
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm not so sure it's a case of "lying" as the (few remaining) main posters/contributors on TJMK are so far down the rabbit hole that I suspect they really believe it. They have an uncanny ability to see only what they want /need to see.
There can be a distinction between lying and uttering a falsehood, not knowing it was false.

But when someone utters a falsehood about an easily and objectively determinable fact because they chose to follow (or claimed to follow) their personal beliefs and do not bother to investigate and to truthfully report: that is also lying.

For example: Suppose, regarding an income tax filing, someone earned (based on objective records) $100,000 in a year, but claimed on the tax form, based on their sincere belief, they had only earned $10,000 in that year. That would be considered perjury by the federal government, if the filer did not correct the return to correspond to the objective record.

Here's another example, relevant to this case:

A police officer is sitting in on the questioning of a person, and observes another police officer strike that person to obtain a desired response to a question.

The first police officer sincerely believes that the person being questioned is guilty of some crime, and also believes that the police are morally allowed to hit someone, especially a guilty person, to get that person to utter a desired response.

When questioned, the first police officer states that the person questioned was treated correctly and certainly was not hit by any police officer during the questioning.

Is that statement by the police officer a lie? Does it matter whether or not the police officer had certain sincere beliefs about how the questioning of a person he sincerely believed was guilty should be conducted?

Last edited by Numbers; 12th July 2018 at 11:41 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:29 PM   #825
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There can be a distinction between lying and uttering a falsehood, not knowing it was false.

But when someone utters a falsehood about an easily and objectively determinable fact because they chose to follow (or claimed to follow) their personal beliefs and do not bother to investigate and to truthfully report: that is also lying.

For example: Suppose, regarding an income tax filing, someone earned (based on objective records) $100,000 in a year, but claimed on the tax form, based on their sincere belief, they had only earned $10,000 in that year. That would be considered perjury by the federal government, if the filer did not correct the return to correspond to the objective record.

Here's another example, relevant to this case:

A police officer is sitting in on the questioning of a person, and observes another police officer strike that person to obtain a desired response to a question.

The first police officer sincerely believes that the person being questioned is guilty of some crime, and also believes that the police are morally allowed to hit someone, especially a guilty person, to get that person to utter a desired response.

When questioned, the first police officer states that the person questioned was treated correctly and certainly was not hit by any police officer during the questioning.

Is that statement by the police officer a lie?
Does it matter whether or not the police officer had certain sincere beliefs about how the questioning of a person he sincerely believed was guilty should be conducted?
Regarding the first highlight: I disagree that it is lying. Blinded by bias? Yes. Having an alternate reality? Yes. Many guilters still claim... and believe... that the TMB negative results do not mean the luminol highlighted footprints were not in blood. That they were not in blood is "an easily and objectively determinable fact" yet the reject it and proffer ludicrous excuses. Why? Because their bias will not allow them to believe otherwise.

Second highlight: I don't think that's a good analogy. Yes, it would be a lie. Whether or not the officer believes "that the police are morally allowed to hit someone", he would still be lying if he says the other officer did not hit the suspect. And he would know that he was lying. His personal belief as to its morality would not change the fact it happened.

I really do think that many of these diehard guilters truly believe things that have been proved false such as Amanda's "bloody footprints", the selective "clean-up" of the murder scene, the timing of the 911 call by Raffaele, et al.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 12th July 2018 at 12:30 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:12 PM   #826
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Regarding the first highlight: I disagree that it is lying. Blinded by bias? Yes. Having an alternate reality? Yes. Many guilters still claim... and believe... that the TMB negative results do not mean the luminol highlighted footprints were not in blood. That they were not in blood is "an easily and objectively determinable fact" yet the reject it and proffer ludicrous excuses. Why? Because their bias will not allow them to believe otherwise.

Second highlight: I don't think that's a good analogy. Yes, it would be a lie. Whether or not the officer believes "that the police are morally allowed to hit someone", he would still be lying if he says the other officer did not hit the suspect. And he would know that he was lying. His personal belief as to its morality would not change the fact it happened.

I really do think that many of these diehard guilters truly believe things that have been proved false such as Amanda's "bloody footprints", the selective "clean-up" of the murder scene, the timing of the 911 call by Raffaele, et al.
Here's my point: if the person making the false claim has not investigated the easily obtained record of the truth, whether or not they "believe" their statement, and claim that their false statement is a factual statement, they are lying. If they are claiming their statement is "true" they should have factual support for it; making the claim without such support is just another form of lying.

Here's another hypothetical which may show my point:

A country's chief executive claims that his country is contributing 90% of the total funding of an international organization. A check of the actual records show that the actual contribution is only 20% of that organization's funding. Is the chief executive lying? What if that chief executive sincerely believes his statement to be true, perhaps based on some news report or opinion that did not rely on actual records? Does the chief executive have a responsibility to check actual records?

If an internet poster claims that they have posted a statement that is true, but that statement is obviously contradicted by other, readily obtained information known to be true, is that poster's statement not a lie? Even if the statement is based upon a delusion, the statement must be regarded as a lie, because only a psychiatrist or similar expert evaluating that poster in person could be sure that the statement was based upon a delusion. To every person simply reading the internet post, who is not the poster's psychiatrist, it must be considered a lie.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th July 2018 at 01:24 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:24 PM   #827
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's my point: if the person making the false claim has not investigated the easily obtained record of the truth, whether or not they "believe" their statement, and claim that their false statement is a factual statement, they are lying. If they are claiming their statement is "true" they should have factual support for it; making the claim without such support is just another form of lying.

Here's another hypothetical which may show my point:

A country's chief executive claims that his country is contributing 90% of the total funding of an international organization. A check of the actual records show that the actual contribution is only 20% of that organization's funding. Is the chief executive lying? What if that chief executive sincerely believes his statement to be true, perhaps based on some news report or opinion that did not rely on actual records? Does the chief executive have a responsibility to check actual records?
If a person truly believes something then they are not lying. That their belief is based on incorrect or incomplete information or even a conscious choice not to investigate that belief, it is still their belief and, therefore, not a lie. A lie is " a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth." If a person believes something to be true, then there is no intent to deceive or to deliberately deceive.

Not that the guilters don't intentionally lie. We saw this with the "Mignini really won his lawsuit against Sollecito who will be making a public apology soon." nonsense.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 02:00 PM   #828
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If a person truly believes something then they are not lying. That their belief is based on incorrect or incomplete information or even a conscious choice not to investigate that belief, it is still their belief and, therefore, not a lie. A lie is " a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth." If a person believes something to be true, then there is no intent to deceive or to deliberately deceive.

Not that the guilters don't intentionally lie. We saw this with the "Mignini really won his lawsuit against Sollecito who will be making a public apology soon." nonsense.
So you confirm that, in your opinion, the police officer who witnessed the person who was hit during police questioning in order to make her say certain desired responses, but testified that he saw only that the person questioned was treated correctly and was not hit, and has so testified because of sincere beliefs or delusions including that a police officer hitting someone believed to be guilty isn't really hitting that person, is not lying, even if said testimony is false.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 02:32 PM   #829
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
So you confirm that, in your opinion, the police officer who witnessed the person who was hit during police questioning in order to make her say certain desired responses, but testified that he saw only that the person questioned was treated correctly and was not hit, and has so testified because of sincere beliefs or delusions including that a police officer hitting someone believed to be guilty isn't really hitting that person, is not lying, even if said testimony is false.
Not at all. I fail to see how you could infer that from what I said. As I said earlier:

"Yes, it would be a lie. Whether or not the officer believes "that the police are morally allowed to hit someone", he would still be lying if he says the other officer did not hit the suspect. And he would know that he was lying. His personal belief as to its morality would not change the fact it happened."

He may believe the other officer had the moral right to hit the suspect, but to deny it happened would be lying.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 02:58 PM   #830
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If a person truly believes something then they are not lying. That their belief is based on incorrect or incomplete information or even a conscious choice not to investigate that belief, it is still their belief and, therefore, not a lie. A lie is " a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth." If a person believes something to be true, then there is no intent to deceive or to deliberately deceive.

Not that the guilters don't intentionally lie. We saw this with the "Mignini really won his lawsuit against Sollecito who will be making a public apology soon." nonsense.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
So you confirm that, in your opinion, the police officer who witnessed the person who was hit during police questioning in order to make her say certain desired responses, but testified that he saw only that the person questioned was treated correctly and was not hit, and has so testified because of sincere beliefs or delusions including that a police officer hitting someone believed to be guilty isn't really hitting that person, is not lying, even if said testimony is false.
The issue with the guilters' misstatements or lies is one of "intent" and how an observer of someone's behavior - such as internet posts - can "know" the "intent" of that person in posting. How does one "know", for example, that a post that contains a false statement is based on "sincerely held beliefs" or "delusions" rather than an intent to deceive, for example, as a "hoax"? If someone makes a false statement in a post, claiming it is true, on some matter that is readily checked, there is no reason for an observer not to consider it a lie. The poster making the false statement - intentionally, so it is a lie - may simply be too naive or uneducated in that specific area to realize that the falsity of the statement is readily detectable. The "reason" for the lie, if any, is "unknowable" and not necessarily important.

The same issues apply to the obviously false statements that appear in some of the motivation reports of the Italian courts in this case.

Some examples: 1) the Nencini court MR claimed that there had been a clean-up of the DNA of Knox and Sollecito while Guede's remained; 2) Nencini also claimed that Sollecito's DNA was found on the knife; and 3) Nencini claimed that the male DNA on the bra clasp not attributed to Sollecito was the result of the bra being touched by Kercher's female friends.

Are these false statements the result of delusions in the Italian court system - since perhaps they are truly believed by those writing the MR - or are they lies, because the judicial authors have an obligation to check the evidence, including known science, even if that means consulting experts or the literature?
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 03:05 PM   #831
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not at all. I fail to see how you could infer that from what I said. As I said earlier:

"Yes, it would be a lie. Whether or not the officer believes "that the police are morally allowed to hit someone", he would still be lying if he says the other officer did not hit the suspect. And he would know that he was lying. His personal belief as to its morality would not change the fact it happened."

He may believe the other officer had the moral right to hit the suspect, but to deny it happened would be lying.
The officer believes, very sincerely or delusionally, that the alleged hitting was "encouraging the obviously guilty suspect to tell the truth".

Hitting is something else. The police are not the ones on trial here, according to the prosecutors.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 03:26 PM   #832
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The officer believes, very sincerely or delusionally, that the alleged hitting was "encouraging the obviously guilty suspect to tell the truth".

Hitting is something else. The police are not the ones on trial here, according to the prosecutors.
I fail to see your point here. Again, denying the hitting happened would be lying no matter what his personal beliefs are regarding the morality of hitting suspects.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 05:37 PM   #833
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I fail to see your point here. Again, denying the hitting happened would be lying no matter what his personal beliefs are regarding the morality of hitting suspects.
The police officers, the prosecutors, and the Italian judges who commit "official misconduct" by making false statements are lying. Whether or not they are doing so as a result of "sincere beliefs" or even delusions is irrelevant. That's the point.

The guilters, as you acknowledged in a previous post, are also lying, at least for some of their false statements. You pointed out:

"Not that the guilters don't intentionally lie. We saw this with the "Mignini really won his lawsuit against Sollecito who will be making a public apology soon." nonsense."

But you also wish to maintain that:

"I'm not so sure it's a case of "lying" as the (few remaining) main posters/contributors on TJMK are so far down the rabbit hole that I suspect they really believe it. They have an uncanny ability to see only what they want /need to see. "

And you give an example of this as:

"Many guilters still claim... and believe... that the TMB negative results do not mean the luminol highlighted footprints were not in blood. That they were not in blood is "an easily and objectively determinable fact" yet the reject it and proffer ludicrous excuses. Why? Because their bias will not allow them to believe otherwise."

So, sometimes you consider that the nonsensical and false statements in guilter posts are intentional falsehoods - lies - but sometimes, you maintain, the falsehoods are not lies because - based upon your knowledge or your assumption - you claim that the guilters really believe those other statements because of their bias.

I don't believe that I can marshal evidence to convince you that your argument may have a logical inconsistency. It seems to me that it does, because I can't tell when a guilter makes a false statement with intent to deceive or, on the other hand, makes it because of a bias.

And I suspect that false statements made with intent to deceive (lies) may be made because of bias. Furthermore, what if the false statements are made with the intent of gaining support, favor, or amusement among other guilters, or of causing supposed discomfort to the (guilters' assumed) "pro-Knox" PIP?

So perhaps we should end this discussion by agreeing that the Italian judges who needed to make false statements or ignore exculpatory evidence in their motivation reports in order to provisionally convict Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher, or to finally convict Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, were not lying, but delusional or biased. Or maybe they were delusional and biased liars.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th July 2018 at 05:41 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 05:48 PM   #834
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The police officers, the prosecutors, and the Italian judges who commit "official misconduct" by making false statements are lying. Whether or not they are doing so as a result of "sincere beliefs" or even delusions is irrelevant. That's the point.

The guilters, as you acknowledged in a previous post, are also lying, at least for some of their false statements. You pointed out:

"Not that the guilters don't intentionally lie. We saw this with the "Mignini really won his lawsuit against Sollecito who will be making a public apology soon." nonsense."

But you also wish to maintain that:

"I'm not so sure it's a case of "lying" as the (few remaining) main posters/contributors on TJMK are so far down the rabbit hole that I suspect they really believe it. They have an uncanny ability to see only what they want /need to see. "

And you give an example of this as:

"Many guilters still claim... and believe... that the TMB negative results do not mean the luminol highlighted footprints were not in blood. That they were not in blood is "an easily and objectively determinable fact" yet the reject it and proffer ludicrous excuses. Why? Because their bias will not allow them to believe otherwise."

So, sometimes you consider that the nonsensical and false statements in guilter posts are intentional falsehoods - lies - but sometimes, you maintain, the falsehoods are not lies because - based upon your knowledge or your assumption - you claim that the guilters really believe those other statements because of their bias.

I don't believe that I can marshal evidence to convince you that your argument may have a logical inconsistency. It seems to me that it does, because I can't tell when a guilter makes a false statement with intent to deceive or, on the other hand, makes it because of a bias.

And I suspect that false statements made with intent to deceive (lies) may be made because of bias. Furthermore, what if the false statements are made with the intent of gaining support, favor, or amusement among other guilters, or of causing supposed discomfort to the (guilters' assumed) "pro-Knox" PIP?

So perhaps we should end this discussion by agreeing that the Italian judges who needed to make false statements or ignore exculpatory evidence in their motivation reports in order to provisionally convict Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher, or to finally convict Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, were not lying, but delusional or biased. Or maybe they were delusional and biased liars.
Frankly, I've lost interest in this topic. I'm too engrossed in that travesty that played out in Congress today with Strzok.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 07:11 PM   #835
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Frankly, I've lost interest in this topic. I'm too engrossed in that travesty that played out in Congress today with Strzok.
It all started with me wondering if Peter Quennell had lied about the ECHR not accepting Knox's review of the calunnia conviction in Italy.

That part is actually not knowable. At best he got it wrong as Numbers has documented. At worst he lied.

There it sits.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:28 PM   #836
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It all started with me wondering if Peter Quennell had lied about the ECHR not accepting Knox's review of the calunnia conviction in Italy.

That part is actually not knowable. At best he got it wrong as Numbers has documented. At worst he lied.

There it sits.
One point is that the guilters, with a high degree of consistency, post false and misleading statements about the Knox - Sollecito case.

If they are doing so with intent to deceive (who?), then, as Stacyhs points out, they are lying.

If they have no intent to deceive, why are they resistant to accepting objective information that corrects their false or misleading statements relating to the Knox - Sollecito case? That resistance may indeed be a sign of bias, and bias may induce a conscious or unconscious tendency to not obtain all the relevant information initially, thereby resulting in erroneous statements in posts. And bias may also induce a conscious tendency to lie (knowingly posting false or misleading statements).

But I am not skilled at distinguishing bias-induced errors from intentional falsehoods (lies). I interpret the rejection of empirically-based evidence and logical reasoning by the guilters as intentional, although possibly motivated by bias.

Others may see the consistent production of false and misleading statements relating to this Knox - Sollecito case by the guilters differently.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th July 2018 at 09:29 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:40 PM   #837
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It all started with me wondering if Peter Quennell had lied about the ECHR not accepting Knox's review of the calunnia conviction in Italy.

That part is actually not knowable. At best he got it wrong as Numbers has documented. At worst he lied.

There it sits.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
One point is that the guilters, with a high degree of consistency, post false and misleading statements about the Knox - Sollecito case.

If they are doing so with intent to deceive (who?), then, as Stacyhs points out, they are lying.

If they have no intent to deceive, why are they resistant to accepting objective information that corrects their false or misleading statements relating to the Knox - Sollecito case? That resistance may indeed be a sign of bias, and bias may induce a conscious or unconscious tendency to not obtain all the relevant information initially, thereby resulting in erroneous statements in posts. And bias may also induce a conscious tendency to lie (knowingly posting false or misleading statements).

But I am not skilled at distinguishing bias-induced errors from intentional falsehoods (lies). I interpret the rejection of empirically-based evidence and logical reasoning by the guilters as intentional, although possibly motivated by bias.

Others may see the consistent production of false and misleading statements relating to this Knox - Sollecito case by the guilters differently.
To the above, I add that the views of anonymous internet posters are not especially important to the eventual resolution of an ECHR case such as Knox v. Italy. Readers of the posts may or may not find them informative or otherwise of value.

However, of more importance to the final resolution of the case, which must depend, as I understand from my (necessarily limited) reading of Italian law and ECHR case-law, on a revision trial conducted by the Italian judicial system, may be statements in a judicial motivation report.

And the Marasca CSC panel motivation report contains what appears to be false statements that have the potential to unfairly influence Amanda Knox's interests in a just revision trial on the charge of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th July 2018 at 09:42 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:34 PM   #838
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
And the Marasca CSC panel motivation report contains what appears to be false statements that have the potential to unfairly influence Amanda Knox's interests in a just revision trial on the charge of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.
Sometimes I think I'm the only one in the world who likes the M/B report - with the exception of the stuff in it about calunnia.

Then again when I started this I though Hellmann had got it exactly right - that Knox had been convictable but not sentencable on calunnia and innocent of the rest (as was Sollecito).

I turned out to be wrong about calunnia. I hadn't appreciated the nature of the all night interrogation until reading Mignini's own account of it, given to Drew Griffin of CNN in 2010. That was the one where Mignini had to establish he'd asked her no questions, but even with this dubious claim he said he figured out Knox was scared of Lumumba but also that she wished to keep talking.

He intuited all that - and then he said he told her that if she kept talking he act as if "only a notary".

Clearly, Mignini lied to Griffin. He had to because he knew that by asking questions of a suspect (when even Mignini said she was when he unquestioned her) she needed a lawyer and a proper translator.

So he unquestioned her, leading to the 5:45 am, second confession that was markedly different from the one signed at 1:45 am.

It was clear to me by then that Mignini had invented the calunnia charge - which M/B says is the only thing that places Knox at the cottage, which M/B must skate around because the Chieffi court had made calunnia a judicial fact.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 09:25 AM   #839
Sergei Walankov
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 179
So has anything of substance happened lately? Vixen-generated noise has robbed this thread of its erstwhile utility as an information source for those of us with an on-and-off interest in the matter.
Sergei Walankov is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 09:34 AM   #840
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Sergei Walankov View Post
So has anything of substance happened lately? Vixen-generated noise has robbed this thread of its erstwhile utility as an information source for those of us with an on-and-off interest in the matter.
In December 2017 Mignini and Comodi did a TV production (available on YouTube I believe) where they basically retried the case. There was not much opposition to them. I watched it but clicked off of it when Comodi said it was quite normal to let DNA evidence sit in situ for 46 days, and that that had not been a relevant factor in the collection procedure.

What else? Peter Quennell once maintained that Mignini had actually won his defamation action(s) against Sollecito and Gumbel for "Honor Bound", Sollecito's book. Even though the criminal side of that had been thrown out, and that Mignini had withdrawn the civil action - Quennell maintained that proof that Mignini had won was the promised public apology by both Gumbel and Sollecito; and apology that Sollecito and Gumbel (apparently) did not know they were to have provided.

Both PMF websites are now gone, one because the owner passed away two years ago, and he'd been the only one in position to correct some (now) corrupted code.

The two acquitted/exonerated people are getting on with their lives, and the victim's family continues to have an empty place at the table.

The Masonic/Mafia/Big Media conspiracy has turned to other things.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 13th July 2018 at 09:36 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.