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 19th June 2019, 07:03 PM   #241
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
True. But one consequence of the proceedings against Guede was that he was given additional time off his sentence because he was, according to the prosecution and as agreed by the courts, not the leader of the attack against Meredith. According to the judgment against Guede, another person led that attack, and was named as Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was also named as a participant in the proceedings against Guede. Yet neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito was on trial in the proceedings against Guede and thus could not have a defense during that trial. That was a legal trick, exploiting the dysfunctional Italian judicial system, to attempt to get a judgment against Guede that could then be used against Amanda and Raffaele in the proceedings against them.
I don't disagree that it was used against RS and AK, but it was still a legally allowed choice and one that was beneficial to RG. He would have been foolish not to go the fast track route with all the evidence against him regardless of whether it was used by the prosecution to their benefit or not.
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 20th June 2019, 07:48 AM   #242
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
It seems that acc. to Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox had nothing to do with his wrongful conviction in 2009. With little to lose, he's now speaking out about those who engineered his wrongful conviction a decade ago, the effects of which he still is forced to live with.

So the remaining (if any are left) guilter-nutters need to take note: the guilter-nutters have always fantasied about Sollecito and Knox throwing each other under a bus. They invented factoid-scenarios based on no evidence whatsoever, saying, "It's soon that all will be revealed," and soon never comes.

More later.
__________________
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 20th June 2019, 08:21 AM   #243
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,121
I want Raffaele to give us an account of how he and Amanda teamed up for an impossible time line and inexplicably brought the town burglar along for the fun as well, probably more-so than the guilters. Definitely more-so.
bagels 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 20th June 2019, 10:23 AM   #244
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
I want Raffaele to give us an account of how he and Amanda teamed up for an impossible time line and inexplicably brought the town burglar along for the fun as well, probably more-so than the guilters. Definitely more-so.
Guilter-nutters who used post here refused to give a timeline.

My favourite excuse for not doing one came from Machiavelli who said he didn't want to spill the beans to us innocentisi, and give us an advantage in the "war" between the two sides.
__________________
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 20th June 2019, 11:15 AM   #245
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Guilter-nutters who used post here refused to give a timeline.

My favourite excuse for not doing one came from Machiavelli who said he didn't want to spill the beans to us innocentisi, and give us an advantage in the "war" between the two sides.
LOL! I've heard some weird excuses from the PGP but that takes the cake!

Did I miss Raff's and Gumbel's apologies to Mignini for writing lies in HB? And I'm sure Marasca's acquittal of RS and AK is going to be challenged for going 'beyond their remit' any moment now. After all, only four years have passed.
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 20th June 2019, 01:42 PM   #246
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I absolutely agree that Rudy Guede was protected and coddled by the police and prosecutor Mignini after Guede was returned to Italy arrested.

Every measure you describe that protected or coddled Guede was meant to set him up as a potential witness against Amanda and Raffaele or to set up the results of his trial to be used against Amanda and Raffaele. The fast-track trial not only resulted in Guede getting a reduced sentence, it allowed for the conclusion of the proceedings against him to be concluded in time to be used, although improperly and illegally according to Italian law and Constitution as stated in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, against Amanda and Raffaele in the proceedings against them.
Some pretty dark and dirty deeds went on during Rudy's fast track trial that were established as legal facts. Not only were the two biggest lies of the case established, those being the staged break-in and the multiple attackers theory, but also the conclusion that Rudy did not deliver the fatal blow. Since there is no evidence to support any of these legal factoids, I see them as a contrived apparatus for ensuring the guilt of K&S, nothing less. Why was Rudy so well protected while K&S were so criminalised? Is the open question. As I see it, it wasn't even an attempt to attribute culpability equally between the three defendants, it was clear attempt to minimise Rudy's role and maximise the case against K&S, particularly Amanda, and ensure their guilt. Maintaining the integrity of the Caporalli family has been mentioned; however Rudy's involvement in petty crime prior to the murder could have been covered up for precisely these reasons. I can't think of much else other than that he was an informant for the cops prior to the murder, and that he was being useful, and therefore protected by the cops prior to the death of Meredith.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Last edited by TomG; 20th June 2019 at 01:44 PM.
TomG 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 20th June 2019, 05:12 PM   #247
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
True. But one consequence of the proceedings against Guede was that he was given additional time off his sentence because he was, according to the prosecution and as agreed by the courts, not the leader of the attack against Meredith. According to the judgment against Guede, another person led that attack, and was named as Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was also named as a participant in the proceedings against Guede. Yet neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito was on trial in the proceedings against Guede and thus could not have a defense during that trial. That was a legal trick, exploiting the dysfunctional Italian judicial system, to attempt to get a judgment against Guede that could then be used against Amanda and Raffaele in the proceedings against them.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I don't disagree that it was used against RS and AK, but it was still a legally allowed choice and one that was beneficial to RG. He would have been foolish not to go the fast track route with all the evidence against him regardless of whether it was used by the prosecution to their benefit or not.
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Some pretty dark and dirty deeds went on during Rudy's fast track trial that were established as legal facts. Not only were the two biggest lies of the case established, those being the staged break-in and the multiple attackers theory, but also the conclusion that Rudy did not deliver the fatal blow. Since there is no evidence to support any of these legal factoids, I see them as a contrived apparatus for ensuring the guilt of K&S, nothing less. Why was Rudy so well protected while K&S were so criminalised? Is the open question. As I see it, it wasn't even an attempt to attribute culpability equally between the three defendants, it was clear attempt to minimise Rudy's role and maximise the case against K&S, particularly Amanda, and ensure their guilt. Maintaining the integrity of the Caporalli family has been mentioned; however Rudy's involvement in petty crime prior to the murder could have been covered up for precisely these reasons. I can't think of much else other than that he was an informant for the cops prior to the murder, and that he was being useful, and therefore protected by the cops prior to the death of Meredith.

Hoots
1. As far as I know, no one is disputing that it was Guede's legal right to ask for and receive a fast-track trial.

2. The problems with the fast-track trial is the way it and its motivation report were used, illegally and against the Italian Constitution, to bring Mignini's false narrative of the crime into the proceedings against Amanda and Raffaele in an attempt to convict them. That is, the verdict and motivation report were used, in bad faith, as if they were the testimony of a co-conspirator in a crime.

The Marasca CSC panel's final judgment of acquittal for Knox and Sollecito explains the Italian laws and Constitutional provisions violated by the use of the results Guede's trials in the proceedings against Knox and Sollecito:

"4.3.2. Regarding the second question, and as regards its usability – according to the method of acquisition under Article 238 bis Italian Code of Criminal Procedure - statements made by Guede contra alios [against others] as part of its proceedings in the absence of people blamed and their lawyers. (This is by reference to Guede’s not always consistent and stable allegations, made during the preliminary investigation and reported in judgment. In these he had somehow involved Knox in the murder, but never explicitly Sollecito, while at the same time continuing to profess his own innocence, despite the presence at the scene of the murder and on the victim's body of numerous biological traces attributable to him). Here the result can only be negative. Indeed, such a mode of acquisition would result in an elusive sidestepping of the guarantees laid down by Article 526 section 1-bis Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, whose tenor is that "the guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who by choice have always voluntarily avoided examination by the accused or his counsel". This would obviously, at the same time, be in violation of Article 111, section 4 Constitution, which gives the same conclusion to harmonise the trial system, according to Article 6[.3] letter d), of the European Commission [sic; correctly; Convention] of Human Rights (Section F. n. 35729 of 01/08/2013, Agrama, Rv 256576).

In this regard, it is useful to recall the principle of "non substitutability", taken by the United Sections of the Supreme Court from the widest category of "legality of the evidence", reflecting that, when the code establishes a prohibition or expresses non-usability, the use of other procedural instruments, typical or atypical, intended to surreptitiously circumvent such a barrier, is forbidden. (Section U, n. 36747 of 28/05/2003, Torcasio, Rv. 225467; cf, and Section U, n. 28997 of 19/04/2012, Pasqua, Rv. 252893)."

3. The prosecution had very strong motivations for using Guede againt Knox and Sollecito to bolster their fabricated case, once it became clear that the evidence that Guede was guilty was overwhelming and that there was no credible evidence against Knox and Sollecito. The prosecution and courts needed to keep Knox on trial and/or convicted until the statute of limitations ran out on the crimes committed by the police and Mignini against Knox during the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. These crimes are detailed in the Boninsegna court motivation report acquitting Knox of calunnia against the police and Mignini. Recall that prosecutors have the same legal status as judges (magistrates) under Italian law - that is, they are both the judicial department which is governed or administered separately from the legislative and executive departments. During the investigation of a case, according to Italian law, the police investigative actions are supervised by the relevant prosecutor.

Thus, the illegal use of Guede and his trial results against Knox and Sollecito, and his favorable treatment by the judicial system, was independent of any role he may have played previously as a police informant or as a star local athlete adopted into the wealthiest and most powerful family in Perugia. It was determined by the need of the prosecutor, Mignini, who had been previously placed on trial for abuse of power, to be protected from potential criminal charges.

Recall, too, how Mignini's trial on the abuse of power charges had ended - the judicial system allowed his trial to be conducted in Florence. However, one or more of the judges in the Florence courts had been victims of Mignini's alleged abuse of power; therefore, after going through the proceedings nearly to their conclusion, the judicial authorities "suddenly" realized there was a conflict of interest in trying Mignini before a Florence court. The authorities then sought to transfer the trial to a new jurisdiction, but, since that took some lengthy time, and the statute of limitations on Mignini's alleged crime ran out, the case against Mignini was necessarily dismissed. That dismissal was, legally, the equivalent of an acquittal. This episode was an example of the judicial system protecting one of its own by legalistic trickery, even at the risk of appearing incompetent.
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 20th June 2019, 05:32 PM   #248
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
I was looking at the Gemelli report on Guede's fast track trial and came across these:

Quote:
[28] She added that for a small part of the afternoon they had spent time looking at photos on the Internet of the evening before (which one of the friends had put on her own blog), specifying that MEREDITH, on the way home, had agreed with Ms PURTON on the fact that they were both tired and would have gone straight to bed, without saying anything at all on where AMANDA was that night or what she was doing. She ruled out, finally, having ever met any of the usual visitors to the basketball courts in front of the University for Foreigners.
Sophie claimed that Meredith and she agreed that they were going to "go straight to bed" upon arriving home at 9:00 yet the prosecution claimed she was attacked around 11:00, a full two hours later. The fact that Meredith was still fully dressed in her street clothes including her jacket does not support the 11:00 timeline but rather that she was attacked very soon after arriving home. The PGP have argued that it would not have been unusual for Meredith to have been completely dressed, including her jacket, a full two hours after coming home but that would not fit with Sophie's claim that the two girls agreed they were "going straight to bed".

Guede's statement:

Quote:
[104] Looking back, and on the basis of the distances covered on foot and the length of his stay at Via del Canerino to clean himself up, he hypothesized that he had left the house at Via della Pergola around 22:30, or a couple of minutes later.
This time frame coincides with Formica's statement that her boyfriend was violently jostled (to the point of almost being knocked down) by a black man running up the stairs by the basketball court at around 22:30 or 22:40:

Quote:
49] Having left the car at the Sant’Antonio carpark, they thus headed for Piazza Grimana, and then took the stairs for the garage, but in the act of descending the witness recalled that her boyfriend – LUCIO MINCIOTTI – had been violently jostled by a young man of colour intent on running very quickly towards Via Pinturicchio: on the basis of the times above indicated, Ms FORMICA fixed this episode at around 22:30 / 22:40.
Combine the above timing (10:30-10:40) with the odd activity on Meredith's mobile between 9:58 and 10:13 and it makes sense that it was Guede using the phone and not Meredith 'playing with her phone' as Massei illogically guessed.
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 20th June 2019, 05:43 PM   #249
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I absolutely agree that Rudy Guede was protected and coddled by the police and prosecutor Mignini after Guede was returned to Italy arrested.

Every measure you describe that protected or coddled Guede was meant to set him up as a potential witness against Amanda and Raffaele or to set up the results of his trial to be used against Amanda and Raffaele. The fast-track trial not only resulted in Guede getting a reduced sentence, it allowed for the conclusion of the proceedings against him to be concluded in time to be used, although improperly and illegally according to Italian law and Constitution as stated in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, against Amanda and Raffaele in the proceedings against them.
Numbers, my point was that I don't think Guede's taking a fast track was set up by Mignini as a premeditated tactic. I think Guede took it because his lawyer advised him to considering the evidence against him. I think Maresca would have advised that even if Knox and Sollecito did not exist. However, I do agree 100% that Mignini used the results of that trial against Knox and Sollecito.
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 20th June 2019, 09:11 PM   #250
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Numbers, my point was that I don't think Guede's taking a fast track was set up by Mignini as a premeditated tactic. I think Guede took it because his lawyer advised him to considering the evidence against him. I think Maresca would have advised that even if Knox and Sollecito did not exist. However, I do agree 100% that Mignini used the results of that trial against Knox and Sollecito.
We should recognize that there are two motivations for Guede taking the fast-track trial, which assured that all the proceedings against him would be carried out separately from those of his co-accused, Knox and Sollecito:

1.a. Because of the overwhelming evidence against him, the fast-track trial was the sensible option. But it was likely to result in a long sentence; in fact, the initial fast-track verdict produced a reduction from life imprisonment to 30 years imprisonment, in accordance with Italian law, as published in the Micheli report:

"FOR THESE REASONS
The Judge for the Preliminary Hearing, having regard to Articles. 442, 533 and 535 cpp
DECLARE[S] GUEDE RUDI HERMANN guilty of the crimes ascribed to him {under} the heads A) and C), considering this violation absorbed in the crime of aggravated murder, and - with the expected reduction for the choice of the rite {the fast-track trial} - the CONDEMNATION punishable by30 years' imprisonment, ...."

1.b. However, it was in the verdict of Guede's appeal trial before the Borsini court of appeals that his sentence was further reduced to 16 years imprisonment, because of specious mitigating factors such as his not having been the one to knife Meredith, at least with the most serious wound:

"In addition, he was the only one of the defendants to apologize to Meredith’s family, even if referring only to his lack of help to her [in her dying moments], as was recognized by the lawyers of the girl’s relatives who participated as civil parties.

Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators.

Taking into account the elements and the circumstances of the crime and, above all else, of the unspeakable suffering inflicted on the victim, the panel holds that it must deliver a judgment in which the mitigating and aggravating circumstances are considered of equal value.

As a result of the aforementioned judgment of equivalence, the sentence applicable becomes that covered in article 575 of the Penal Code.

In conclusion, the panel holds that the standard sentence on which to apply the reduction of one third for the process {that is, the fast-track trial} chosen, must still be in relation to the undeniable seriousness of the crime, being the maximum foreseen of 24 years.

For This Reason [P.Q.M.]

The Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia pursuant to articles 443, 605, 599 of the Penal Code with partial reform of the sentence delivered on 28th October 2008 by the Judge of the preliminary hearing [GUP] at the Tribunal of Perugia against Rudi Hermann GUEDE, appealed by him, with the generic mitigating circumstances being equivalent to the contested aggravating circumstances,

REDUCES

the punishment of the appellant to 16 years of imprisonment
."

1.c. The finalization of the conviction of Guede, including the 16-year sentence, by the Giordano CSC panel, contains the following statement:

"In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance."

So it is clear that the specious introduction of other participants - and Knox and Sollecito were the targets selected by the police and Mignini, not necessarily initially to help Guede, but certainly, in my view, because they were "convenient suspects" or "soft targets", resulted in a reduction in sentence from 30 or 24 years for Guede to 16 years.

2. The prosecution could not force Guede to seek a fast-track trial, but it seems reasonable to believe that the prosecution welcomed this choice, because it was a separate trial. Under Italian law, the final results of a trial can be introduced into a different trial as evidence. It enabled the prosecution to seek to introduce the results of Guede's trials, including his statements against Knox and Sollecito, without requiring his testimony. And, as pointed out by the Marasca CSC panel, this introduction was against Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and the Convention because of the linkage of the accused: Knox, Sollecito, and Guede were accused as co-conspirators, and Guede had refused to testify and be cross-examined by the Knox - Sollecito defense lawyers. Therefore, the prosecution was attempting to violate Article 111 of the Italian Constitution and applicable Italian law, which prohibits introduction of testimonial evidence from a person who has refused to testify and be cross-examined.

3. Maresca was not Guede's lawyer, at least not officially.

Last edited by Numbers; 20th June 2019 at 09:13 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 20th June 2019, 10:49 PM   #251
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,201
I think another aspect of how the legal process was manipulated (legally) was bringing the callunia case with the murder case against Knox and Sollecito. Thus although he statements could not be used against Knox for murder nonetheless the judge and jury were allowed to hear them in the same trial as evidence for callunia. It is impossible to think that the lay judges could exclude the evidence for callunia from their consideration in the murder trial.
Planigale 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 21st June 2019, 12:04 AM   #252
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Numbers, whether or not Knox and Sollecito's participation and Guede's "apology" were considered in reducing the sentence, the standard 1/3 reduction would apply as you mentioned. It's likely Guede would have been given the full sentence considering the heinous aspects of the murder so knowing there would be an automatic 1/3 reduction would have been quite attractive.
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 21st June 2019, 12:09 AM   #253
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I think another aspect of how the legal process was manipulated (legally) was bringing the callunia case with the murder case against Knox and Sollecito. Thus although he statements could not be used against Knox for murder nonetheless the judge and jury were allowed to hear them in the same trial as evidence for callunia. It is impossible to think that the lay judges could exclude the evidence for callunia from their consideration in the murder trial.
Agreed. I suspect Lumumba was encouraged to bring a civil lawsuit against Knox which is the main reason he changed his tune 180 degrees from "I was hit, punched and kicked" by the police to one of "I was treated well". I'd still like to know exactly when he filed that lawsuit in relation to when he changed his tune about his interrogation and when his pub was released by the police.
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 22nd June 2019, 06:47 AM   #254
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post

3. The prosecution had very strong motivations for using Guede againt Knox and Sollecito to bolster their fabricated case, once it became clear that the evidence that Guede was guilty was overwhelming and that there was no credible evidence against Knox and Sollecito. The prosecution and courts needed to keep Knox on trial and/or convicted until the statute of limitations ran out on the crimes committed by the police and Mignini against Knox during the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. These crimes are detailed in the Boninsegna court motivation report acquitting Knox of calunnia against the police and Mignini. Recall that prosecutors have the same legal status as judges (magistrates) under Italian law - that is, they are both the judicial department which is governed or administered separately from the legislative and executive departments. During the investigation of a case, according to Italian law, the police investigative actions are supervised by the relevant prosecutor.

Thus, the illegal use of Guede and his trial results against Knox and Sollecito, and his favorable treatment by the judicial system, was independent of any role he may have played previously as a police informant or as a star local athlete adopted into the wealthiest and most powerful family in Perugia. It was determined by the need of the prosecutor, Mignini, who had been previously placed on trial for abuse of power, to be protected from potential criminal charges.

Recall, too, how Mignini's trial on the abuse of power charges had ended - the judicial system allowed his trial to be conducted in Florence. However, one or more of the judges in the Florence courts had been victims of Mignini's alleged abuse of power; therefore, after going through the proceedings nearly to their conclusion, the judicial authorities "suddenly" realized there was a conflict of interest in trying Mignini before a Florence court. The authorities then sought to transfer the trial to a new jurisdiction, but, since that took some lengthy time, and the statute of limitations on Mignini's alleged crime ran out, the case against Mignini was necessarily dismissed. That dismissal was, legally, the equivalent of an acquittal. This episode was an example of the judicial system protecting one of its own by legalistic trickery, even at the risk of appearing incompetent.
It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I still stand by the transferral of protection theory, with the earliest time it became evident being on the 2nd Nov. with the discovery of the break-in. It is also offers a solution more compatible with Occam's razor and less dietrologia. I tend to think the theory of the staged break-in is so bizarre that it requires a leap of imagination that the evidence just doesn't support. I can understand Mignini coming to these conclusions if after basic detective work in Filomena's room had backed up his conclusion, but no such work was ever carried out; therefore Mignini's "traitor" theory is groundless since the evidence to support it doesn't exist. So, it was either complete incompence by Mignini or it was an effort to construct an apparatus and stymie the investigation to include others.

Also, If I recall correctly, Stacy already said, the staged break-in would not even be necessary to protect Rudy. Why go to such lengths since it would be more effective to just leave the front door open, since it didn't close properly, and go to Gubbio as planned the next day? I don't think Mignini could have been that incompetent, at the very least he could have been cautious and let the facts reveal themselves, but by not thoroughly investigating Filomena's bedroom he made a decision that no rational investigator would make, not because evidence didn't indicate an actual break-in but because it DID, and the evidence was clear on the day to safely conclude that fact without the delay of resorting to forensic science. All of which leads me to conclude that it was Rudy who was being protected, with that protection now being a liability, as previously indicated.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 22nd June 2019, 08:17 AM   #255
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Numbers, my point was that I don't think Guede's taking a fast track was set up by Mignini as a premeditated tactic. I think Guede took it because his lawyer advised him to considering the evidence against him. I think Maresca would have advised that even if Knox and Sollecito did not exist. However, I do agree 100% that Mignini used the results of that trial against Knox and Sollecito.
Should he have been given the option?

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Last edited by TomG; 22nd June 2019 at 08:24 AM.
TomG 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 22nd June 2019, 10:20 AM   #256
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Should he have been given the option?

Hoots
"Should" doesn't come into it; it's a defendant's legal right.
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 22nd June 2019, 10:42 AM   #257
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by TomG View Post

It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I still stand by the transferral of protection theory, with the earliest time it became evident being on the 2nd Nov. with the discovery of the break-in. It is also offers a solution more compatible with Occam's razor and less dietrologia. I tend to think the theory of the staged break-in is so bizarre that it requires a leap of imagination that the evidence just doesn't support. I can understand Mignini coming to these conclusions if after basic detective work in Filomena's room had backed up his conclusion, but no such work was ever carried out; therefore Mignini's "traitor" theory is groundless since the evidence to support it doesn't exist. So, it was either complete incompence by Mignini or it was an effort to construct an apparatus and stymie the investigation to include others.

Also, If I recall correctly, Stacy already said, the staged break-in would not even be necessary to protect Rudy. Why go to such lengths since it would be more effective to just leave the front door open, since it didn't close properly, and go to Gubbio as planned the next day? I don't think Mignini could have been that incompetent, at the very least he could have been cautious and let the facts reveal themselves, but by not thoroughly investigating Filomena's bedroom he made a decision that no rational investigator would make, not because evidence didn't indicate an actual break-in but because it DID, and the evidence was clear on the day to safely conclude that fact without the delay of resorting to forensic science. All of which leads me to conclude that it was Rudy who was being protected, with that protection now being a liability, as previously indicated.

Hoots
Tom, I think this just falls into the 'theory bucket'. Personally, I neither agree or disagree with you. I just hold a different theory which I think is equally plausible. In the end, I doubt we'll ever know the truth so we'll just have to live with the knowledge that the person - the only person - who murdered Meredith has been convicted and is doing time.

But, since I find it an interesting discussion....

Remember, in the Harper case I mentioned earlier, the investigator immediately concluded the broken door glass was staged and THAT one conclusion drove his entire investigation. I think it's reasonable to wonder why there might be some glass on top of clothes that are assumed to have been strewn about by an intruder, so jumping to the conclusion of a staged break-in is not unreasonable. Mignini certainly didn't hide his assumption that only a woman would cover the body, nor was either he or Giobbi shy about assuming Amanda's behavior (i.e., kissing Raffaele, the "tada", etc.) was inappropriate and suspicious. They likely didn't know about the broken latch right away and by then they were so convinced of a staged break-in that they probably wouldn't have paid attention to a detail that could prove it wrong anyway. Tunnel vision has derailed many an investigation.

Mignini WAS that incompetent. Since when does an investigation declare case closed without even looking at the forensic evidence? If you're competent AND you want to protect someone, you still have to run what would appear to be a competent investigation. I think a rush to judgement and then covering up a badly incompetent investigation is very compatible with Occam's razor. And if you're trying to cover up the fact that you arrested three innocent people and made a global spectacle of it, you're going to do everything you can to ensure they are convicted - or in the case of Lumumba, you get to blame the other suspects for his arrest. Indeed, he was far more competent covering up his incompetence than he was investigating the crime.

Let's assume Mignini did know straight away that Guede committed the murder. He would then also have known he could no longer be protected. So even if he was an informant, his usefulness in that role was over - he was going to jail for a very long time. There would be absolutely no reason to implicate others.

Just food for thought...
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 22nd June 2019, 10:53 AM   #258
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"Should" doesn't come into it; it's a defendant's legal right.
Thanks for that Stacy. I knew it was an option, I didn't know it was an unrestricted legal right in the circumstances; it certainly shouldn't have been, however, it only shows how dysfunctional Italian law actually is.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 22nd June 2019, 10:54 AM   #259
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Raffaele Sollecito was wrongfully convicted for murder, but then exonerated in 2015 by the Italian Supreme Court. In the media frenzy which was fed by the original Perugian prosecution (through lurid leaks about Amanda Knox), Sollecito was virtually ignored while being sentenced to the same punishment for what neither RS or AK ever did.

Sollecito is speaking out and occasionally finding traction within Italy for his wrongful conviction and the failure within Italy to get just compensation.

Sollecito was also the target of satellite prosecutions by people like Giuliano Mignini, who had both Sollecito and author Andrew Gumbel charged with slander fo allegations within Sollecito's book, "Honor Bound". Tellingly, the court adjudicating this threw out the charges, and Mignini quietly dropped his own parallel civil action. At the time, guilter-nutters on the internet promised that all of that had come about because Sollecito & Gumbel had agreed to publicly apologize "within the week".

How long ago was that?

In any event, here's some of the more recent Italian language coverage of Sollecito's wrongful conviction - one piece is from PergugiaToday which gave papa Sollecito equal time, after publishing some of Mignini's own 2019 views....

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...3AKICBBIfdtAEc

http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/omici...zodKRJScAFDXEE

https://www.nicolaporro.it/sollecito...dgvPcLCeQG3Zb4
Quote:
From: Perugia Today, 15 June 2019. Translation by Google with help from Collins Reverso

Amanda Knox in Italy, Sollecito speaks: "On the case there is only one truth, that of the acquittal judgment"

Controversy and trials by media: The father of Raffaele speaks on the reconstruction of the incident which involved his son: "The judgment of the {Nencini Court of Appeal of} Florence was marred by glaring motivational errors"


With the return to Italy of Amanda Knox, the young US woman who was tried and definitively acquitted along with Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, it was easy to imagine sparking controversy, taking a stand and igniting the debate between (remaining) supporters of guilt and innocence.

On the matter the Cassation has stated the definitive judgment, acquitting the two defendants and, even allowing for evaluations and interpretations, that remains the unassailable acknowledgment that the two young people, then a romantic couple, are innocent.

Perugia Today hosted an interview with the magistrate Giuliano Mignini, at the time the supervisor of the investigations and then the prosecutor in the trial with his colleague Manuela Comodi, therefore, today it is mandatory to give space also to the voice of one of the parties, in this case to Francesco Sollecito, father of the young Raffaele.

"Dr. Mignini declares himself perplexed about the definition of the case, given that in his opinion there is a clear contrast between the two judgments of merit and that in fact there is no substantive sentence on this judicial case,” says Francesco Sollecito, “I invite him to read more carefully the reasons for the final acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. To facilitate his task, I will report some excerpts from the sentence of the fifth section of the Supreme Court of Cassation, trusting in his due in-depth analysis, rather than arguing that, after the preliminary investigations, the media pressure was completely reversed on the investigators."

According to Raffaele's parent the motivation report of the Cassation on page 23 indicates the investigations had “conspicuous logical inconsistencies and blatant errors in judgment. [The proceedings were] an objectively wavering procedure, whose oscillations are, however, the result also of glaring failures or investigative amnesia and of culpable omissions of investigational activity."

On page 24, there is reference to "the unusual media clamor of the story and the international repercussions that resulted in the investigations having undergone a sudden acceleration, which, in the frantic search for one or more culprits to be delivered to public opinion, has certainly not helped in the search for substantial truth."

Page 32 points out the "deplorable carelessness in the preliminary investigation phase"; while on page 43 “there are notable errors in the motivational fabric of the judgment {of the Nencini Appeal Court} under examination. The assumption that the imperceptible DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was found in the imperceptible striations of the knife considered to be the murder weapon was completely erroneous. But nowhere does it appear that the knife bore biological traces attributable to the genetic profile of Sollecito ". "The absolute lack of biological traces of the two defendants in the murder room or on the victim's body" is discussed on page 45, while page 47 notes the "unreliability of some of the key witnesses of the accusation". Continuing the discussion on traces of blood, on page 49 it is emphasized that "no traces of blood were found on the kitchen knife considered to be the murder weapon".

"I add that Amanda has never been guilty of the blood of the victim, given that the Cassation has never written it, nor does it appear in any part of the trial documents,” says Francesco Sollecito. “As for a further referral to a Court of Appeal, reading on page 51 it is clear that a referral would be useless {because of the total lack of credible evidence of guilt} and therefore the Supreme Court of Cassation decided to annul without referral, thus applying a specification of acquittal {dismissal} which would in any case be required of a new referral court in accordance with the principles of law set forth in the present Cassation judgment,” adds Sollecito. Thus, it appears quite clear that the Cassation has annulled without referral a judgment of merit by the second penal section of Florence for glaringly obvious motivational errors, fully rehabilitating the judgment of acquittal of the Court of Appeal of Perugia."

The Kercher crime, therefore, appears delineated by the judgment of conviction of Rudy Guede and of the judgment of acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele, even if the multiple judgments (two of the judge for the preliminary hearing, one of first degree, three of appeal and three of Cassation - including those of Rudy) generate debate and interpretations.

"Contrary to what is claimed by Dr. Mignini, there is, on the other hand, unequivocally a judgment of merit on this troubled judicial affair,” concludes Raffaele's father, “and that is the judgment of acquittal by the Court of Appeal of Perugia." And even more so is the final pronouncement of acquittal by the [Supreme Court of] Cassation.
__________________
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 22nd June 2019, 11:12 AM   #260
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
But, Bill, nothing Dr. Sollecito says is credible because, after all, he is a close relative of the notorious mafioso Rocco Sollecito as the pictures of him attending the gangster's funeral prove!
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 22nd June 2019, 12:07 PM   #261
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But, Bill, nothing Dr. Sollecito says is credible because, after all, he is a close relative of the notorious mafioso Rocco Sollecito as the pictures of him attending the gangster's funeral prove!
Roberta Bruzzone, an armchair "criminologist", was invited onto Porta a Porta, and was advancing yet another theory about the crime.

This time, Raffaele had not been involved at all. I am unable to recount her "train of thought", as it is impossible enough, as it is, to put together a theory of the crime which involves all three of Guede, Sollecito and Knox.

Bruzzone seems immune to logic. If Sollecito was not involved, then he's a solid alibi!

What I want to know - where is Francesco Maresca complaining that all this simply keeps bringing up unpleasant stuff for the victim's family?

Consistancy is not one of Maresca's strong suits.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 22nd June 2019 at 12:09 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 22nd June 2019, 12:37 PM   #262
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Tom, I think this just falls into the 'theory bucket'. Personally, I neither agree or disagree with you. I just hold a different theory which I think is equally plausible. In the end, I doubt we'll ever know the truth so we'll just have to live with the knowledge that the person - the only person - who murdered Meredith has been convicted and is doing time.

But, since I find it an interesting discussion....

Remember, in the Harper case I mentioned earlier, the investigator immediately concluded the broken door glass was staged and THAT one conclusion drove his entire investigation. I think it's reasonable to wonder why there might be some glass on top of clothes that are assumed to have been strewn about by an intruder, so jumping to the conclusion of a staged break-in is not unreasonable. Mignini certainly didn't hide his assumption that only a woman would cover the body, nor was either he or Giobbi shy about assuming Amanda's behavior (i.e., kissing Raffaele, the "tada", etc.) was inappropriate and suspicious. They likely didn't know about the broken latch right away and by then they were so convinced of a staged break-in that they probably wouldn't have paid attention to a detail that could prove it wrong anyway. Tunnel vision has derailed many an investigation.

Mignini WAS that incompetent. Since when does an investigation declare case closed without even looking at the forensic evidence? If you're competent AND you want to protect someone, you still have to run what would appear to be a competent investigation. I think a rush to judgement and then covering up a badly incompetent investigation is very compatible with Occam's razor. And if you're trying to cover up the fact that you arrested three innocent people and made a global spectacle of it, you're going to do everything you can to ensure they are convicted - or in the case of Lumumba, you get to blame the other suspects for his arrest. Indeed, he was far more competent covering up his incompetence than he was investigating the crime.

Let's assume Mignini did know straight away that Guede committed the murder. He would then also have known he could no longer be protected. So even if he was an informant, his usefulness in that role was over - he was going to jail for a very long time. There would be absolutely no reason to implicate others.

Just food for thought...
They did run what appeared to be a competent thorough investigation, but it was to locate just who were the softest targets, that's all.

My theory is that Mignini did know that it was Rudy since his M.O. was known to him, he could hardly miss it. The bottom line is that there is ample scope for collusion between Mignini and Rudy. It just goes back to the same old story. Both the Milan and Perugia prosecuting magistrates had failed to prosecute Rudy for previous crimes. The fact that Rudy was found in Milan with a stolen kitchen knife in his rucksack should have alerted them to the fact that the knife was not for decorative purposes. Rudy was born to lie, he did it by the bucketload in his Franca Leosini interview. I'm surprised the Scientific cops didn't find it in his DNA. If Rudy was to be the only killer multiple careers including Mignini's would have been ruined for not getting him off the streets when the opportunity was there. The Kerchers would have wanted Mignini's butt in the mower, his nuts in the blender and his head on a plate. Instead they got Amanda's head on a plate simply by reversing the responsibility for protection.

Perhaps Mignini was incompetent as a prosecutor, and previous cases indicate that he was, but he was a master at manipulating the press and public opinion against K&S. Perhaps these strengths and weaknesses in Mignini's personality are written in his DNA, resulting in tragic endgames such as this.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 22nd June 2019, 01:27 PM   #263
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Roberta Bruzzone, an armchair "criminologist", was invited onto Porta a Porta, and was advancing yet another theory about the crime.

This time, Raffaele had not been involved at all. I am unable to recount her "train of thought", as it is impossible enough, as it is, to put together a theory of the crime which involves all three of Guede, Sollecito and Knox.

Bruzzone seems immune to logic. If Sollecito was not involved, then he's a solid alibi!

What I want to know - where is Francesco Maresca complaining that all this simply keeps bringing up unpleasant stuff for the victim's family?

Consistancy is not one of Maresca's strong suits.
I was reading the comments in Bruzzone's twitter page. Such ignorance from so many people about the facts. One is claiming that Amanda is from a rich and powerful family for god's sake. Another one "In my opinion Andrea Barilari Amanda is guilty, unfortunately the ameri .. dogs are always right" Hmmm....but anti-Americanism didn't exist in this case, right?
Another wrote "And how do they explain broken glass from inside? Traces of meredith on the collection knife? Traces of Sollecito on the bra hook you meredith? The cell phone found by the neighbor and the carabinieri arrived called by the same, the two sweethearts away from home saying they had called". It's as if none of this has been addressed in great detail for the last decade.
Another says she's "convinced Rudy is innocent." Yikes. No accounting for stupidity.

ETA: The fact people like this sit on juries scares the hell out of me.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 22nd June 2019 at 01:32 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 22nd June 2019, 01:33 PM   #264
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Bill, I can find nothing on what Bruzzone actually said. I'm interested in this new "non-Raff" theory she's come up with. It's got to be a doozy.
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 22nd June 2019, 02:10 PM   #265
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Bill, I can find nothing on what Bruzzone actually said. I'm interested in this new "non-Raff" theory she's come up with. It's got to be a doozy.
For total transparency, my account of it is third hand. Although I trust the source of this, I have not seen the actual quote firsthand.

Therefore I've got nothing to cite directly. It would have been better if I'd included this info in the original so that readers could decide for themselves.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 22nd June 2019 at 02:14 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 22nd June 2019, 02:15 PM   #266
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
For total transparency, my account of it is third hand. Although I trust the source of this, I have not seen the actual quote firsthand.

Therefore I've got nothing to cite directly. It would have been better if I'd included this info in the original.
Darn. Only a third hand account? I was hoping for an unnamed and unproven "insider"! We know we can rely on those!
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 22nd June 2019, 02:21 PM   #267
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Darn. Only a third hand account? I was hoping for an unnamed and unproven "insider"! We know we can rely on those!
People can decide for themselves whether or not to believe.....

It is an unnamed but proven commentator of all things judicial in Italy.
__________________
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 22nd June 2019, 04:32 PM   #268
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Bill, I can find nothing on what Bruzzone actually said. I'm interested in this new "non-Raff" theory she's come up with. It's got to be a doozy.
Just listen to her:
https://www.raiplay.it/video/2019/06...a8f801ba7.html
You'll have to register or log in via facebook, it's the final forty minutes that are interesting
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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 22nd June 2019, 04:40 PM   #269
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Just listen to her:
https://www.raiplay.it/video/2019/06...a8f801ba7.html
You'll have to register or log in via facebook, it's the final forty minutes that are interesting
Is it in English or Italian? I assumed Italian.
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 23rd June 2019, 08:24 AM   #270
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Roberta Bruzzone, an armchair "criminologist", was invited onto Porta a Porta, and was advancing yet another theory about the crime.

This time, Raffaele had not been involved at all. I am unable to recount her "train of thought", as it is impossible enough, as it is, to put together a theory of the crime which involves all three of Guede, Sollecito and Knox.

Bruzzone seems immune to logic. If Sollecito was not involved, then he's a solid alibi!

What I want to know - where is Francesco Maresca complaining that all this simply keeps bringing up unpleasant stuff for the victim's family?

Consistancy is not one of Maresca's strong suits.
This is worse. Amanda was only addressing the role of the press in her own case. What Bruzzone is trying to do is reinvent the case even though it has been over for 4 years. This shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 23rd June 2019, 08:54 AM   #271
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,911
As posted previously, the ECHR on 25 June 2019 will report whether the Chamber judgment in Knox v. Italy is final or, instead, that there will be a Grand Chamber judgment on the case in the future (perhaps in 1 or 2 years).

From the ECHR Press Release issued 18 June 2019:

Forthcoming Grand Chamber Panel

At its next meeting (Monday 24 June 2019), a panel of five judges will examine the following 15 Grand Chamber referral requests1. {Only the one of specific interest is shown below.}

The decisions of the panel will be made public on Tuesday 25 June 2019 via a press release, which will be available on the Court’s Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Requests for referral submitted by the Government

Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13), judgment of 24 January 2019

1 Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.
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 23rd June 2019, 09:02 AM   #272
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
This is worse. Amanda was only addressing the role of the press in her own case. What Bruzzone is trying to do is reinvent the case even though it has been over for 4 years. This shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

Hoots
Journalists call it a "man bites dog" story. No one is going to air/write a story these days about Rudy alone committing this crime. With a wee bit of explanatory commentary, that fact was judicially and factually settled in 2015.

The only thing of interest is if someone of some sort of repute can string together some contrary sentences, usually of the form, "there's still a lot we don't know....", or "someone knows something they're not telling us."

Bruzzone's mistake was to make a firm claim, which (seemingly) unbeknownst to her causes the case against Knox also to fall apart.

Convicting courts way back when knew darn well they had to weld the pair together, Nencini outright said that if a factoid tended to convict one, it convicted both.

Thus was born the "separation strategy" that Sollecito adopted in his final appeal to Cassation. "They say that Factoid A is damning to Knox? But what does Factoid A have to do with me?" And so on.

I believe that the five 5th Chamber judges looked at each other and conceded: "he's right, it's got nothing to do with him." And they quickly reasoned, that that, then, makes him an alibi for Knox.

As. Simple. As. That.

Bruzzone actually IS simply repeating old tripe. Stuff that was settled more than four years ago.
__________________
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 23rd June 2019, 11:15 AM   #273
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Quote:
Bruzzone's mistake was to make a firm claim
What claim? So far we've had one post that she said something that came from a third hand source.

Watching the Rai video is useless because I don't understand Italian. Has anyone here actually understood it or had someone else translate it for them? Unless someone has, saying Bruzzone said anything is unsupported.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 23rd June 2019 at 11:16 AM.
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 23rd June 2019, 12:49 PM   #274
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,911
Here's a case from the US where allegedly the police selected a "convenient suspect" ("soft target") in order to quickly "solve" a homicide with minimal effort.

This is what I suggest was the motivation for the police in their initial efforts against Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba. Others, of course, may differ, and they are entitled to their opinions.

I will also point out that Mignini had a track record of alleged prosecutorial abuses of power, and his actions in the case may include motivations beyond those of the police.

Once the police and prosecutor had coerced Knox into making her statements against Lumumba in Nov. 5/6 interrogations, for their own protection against prosecution for violations of Italian criminal law, they felt compelled to proceed with the case against Knox and Sollecito even when the evidence indicated that Guede was the sole murderer/rapist of Kercher. They had to do this for at least as long as the statute of limitations for their criminal acts.

Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba thus gave the police and prosecution the desired protection from prosecution, whether or not the courts convicted her of the murder/rape of Kercher.

Here's an excerpt from a news article on the US alleged "convenient suspect" case:


"A man has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that authorities’ desire to close a homicide case fast led to his wrongful conviction and imprisonment more than a decade ago. ....

The lawsuit alleges Chicago police officers were determined to close the murder case quickly and with “minimal effort.” "

Source:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/6/...XUlmODuLy31MyE
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 23rd June 2019, 02:34 PM   #275
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's a case from the US where allegedly the police selected a "convenient suspect" ("soft target") in order to quickly "solve" a homicide with minimal effort.

This is what I suggest was the motivation for the police in their initial efforts against Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba. Others, of course, may differ, and they are entitled to their opinions.

I will also point out that Mignini had a track record of alleged prosecutorial abuses of power, and his actions in the case may include motivations beyond those of the police.

Once the police and prosecutor had coerced Knox into making her statements against Lumumba in Nov. 5/6 interrogations, for their own protection against prosecution for violations of Italian criminal law, they felt compelled to proceed with the case against Knox and Sollecito even when the evidence indicated that Guede was the sole murderer/rapist of Kercher. They had to do this for at least as long as the statute of limitations for their criminal acts.

Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba thus gave the police and prosecution the desired protection from prosecution, whether or not the courts convicted her of the murder/rape of Kercher.

Here's an excerpt from a news article on the US alleged "convenient suspect" case:


"A man has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that authorities’ desire to close a homicide case fast led to his wrongful conviction and imprisonment more than a decade ago. ....

The lawsuit alleges Chicago police officers were determined to close the murder case quickly and with “minimal effort.” "

Source:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/6/...XUlmODuLy31MyE
1. Regarding the motivations of Mignini, are there any real, high-performing investigators who think of themselves as real-life Sherlock Holmeses, as Mignini states he does in the Netflix documentary on the case?

2. Sometimes we may take the statements of the police or prosecutor literally when we should be skeptical. For example, I believe it is possible that Giobbi's statements identifying the behavioral signs that caused him to be suspicious of Knox and Sollecito may actually be post hoc justifications for the real reasons, of which he may well be aware: The desire to close the case quickly and thus with little effort led to identification of convenient suspects (soft targets); then, there must be a more socially acceptable - even if laughable - rationale offered for why the persons were chosen to be suspect.

An example of this is the very thorough DNA sampling and profile testing of the alleged cat's blood; Giobbi (absurdly) stated in testimony before the Massei court that the blood stain found by the downstairs light switch was the result of the cat jumping. A rough analogy: the Italian captain of a capsized cruise liner, on a lifeboat while passengers remain on board, is ordered by the Italian coast guard to return to his ship to supervise their rescue, as was his duty. The captain refused and stated that he had accidentally slid down the side of the ship into the lifeboat.

Last edited by Numbers; 23rd June 2019 at 02:36 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 23rd June 2019, 04:56 PM   #276
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What claim? So far we've had one post that she said something that came from a third hand source.

Watching the Rai video is useless because I don't understand Italian. Has anyone here actually understood it or had someone else translate it for them? Unless someone has, saying Bruzzone said anything is unsupported.
True.

Whereas you are right to be skeptical, as for me I am comfortable passing it on this way. But if I am that necessitates me being transparent about it so that people can decide for themselves on what, for them, is unverified.
__________________
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 23rd June 2019, 05:59 PM   #277
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,304
Amanda and Chris had a few nice days in the south of France to relax before flying home according to her Instagram page. Unlike claims we've seen of what an attention whore Knox is, she gave no interviews to anyone while in Italy and looks to have slipped under the radar while in France.
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 24th June 2019, 10:57 AM   #278
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Journalists call it a "man bites dog" story. No one is going to air/write a story these days about Rudy alone committing this crime. With a wee bit of explanatory commentary, that fact was judicially and factually settled in 2015.

The only thing of interest is if someone of some sort of repute can string together some contrary sentences, usually of the form, "there's still a lot we don't know....", or "someone knows something they're not telling us."
.
Yes there is "still a lot we don't know" and there is the fact that "someone knows something they're not telling us."or putting it another way there is plenty that Mignini and the cops know, that they won't reveal. This is simply another example of transferal of responsibility from Mignini onto Amanda in order to sucker everyone into a little intrigue. It's fat boy and his ring kissing sycophants at the questura that have all the secrets, and all the answers. They've adroitly kept the less informed public blindsided with this smokescreen for years.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 24th June 2019, 11:08 AM   #279
TomG
Scholar
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post

I believe that the five 5th Chamber judges looked at each other and conceded: "he's right, it's got nothing to do with him." And they quickly reasoned, that that, then, makes him an alibi for Knox.
But did Amanda really need Raffaele's alibi if it was a tactic to that effect? There is the same poverty of evidence against Amanda as there is for Raffaele. It seems to me that the separation tactic wasn't really required in the final analysis.

Hoots.
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 24th June 2019, 11:52 AM   #280
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,166
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
But did Amanda really need Raffaele's alibi if it was a tactic to that effect? There is the same poverty of evidence against Amanda as there is for Raffaele. It seems to me that the separation tactic wasn't really required in the final analysis.

Hoots.
Ok, then there's that.

Then again, Sollecito continually fought stuff aimed at Knox, no matter how flakey, that was as an almost afterthought applied to him.... but with the same devastating effect.

When Sollecito appeared on Katie Couric's afternoon show, Couric almost universally asked questions about Knox. "Why did Knox do cartwheels?" "Why did Knox have all that bizarre behaviour?"

You could see the frustration on his face, as if to say, "this is not about Knox!" Couric asked virtually nothing about the bizarre prosecution theories, or the equally bizarre convicting-court findings.

So.... true, there was (equally) no evidence against Knox. But up to the 2014 conviction, the silly stuff which had been bizarrely applied to Knox was also by judicial judgment also applied to him. All he needed to ask was, "What does factoid X against Knox have to do with me?"
__________________
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
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 12:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.