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 Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 13th October 2021, 07:03 AM   #1521
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Massei's reasoning (in his 2010 motivations report, emanating from the 2009 conviction) in this regard is just bizarre.

First off, Massei writes that the pillow must have been placed under the victim's hips for no other purpose than to facilitate the assault. (Page 166)

Massei then simply quote Stefanoni's words that, "Analysis was not done on the pillow because it was considered more useful to use it for print analysis, whether of shoeprints or handprints." (Page 231) Neither Massei nor Stefanoni offered a reason why all tests could not be done.

But on page 232, Massei offers the most bizarre reason for not testing for a genetic investigation of the presumed-sperm stain.... namely, that such an investigation might I.D. someone, but the sample could not be dated as to the time of deposit.

A pillow under a sexual assaults' victim's hips!!!! Remember, the severed bra-clasp had been initially found under that pillow, and Massei reasoned that Sollecito's partial profile, mixed in with the victim's COULD BE DATED.

Massei is not even interested. He implies that the victim's boyfriend could have left this sample on a previous occasion. The very pillow a murderer decided to place under the victim's hips during an assault.

Such was the reasoning used by a judge who'd convicted the pair in 2009.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Massei was illogical, that's for sure. If the semen had proved to be Sollecito, that would have been evidence pointing to guilt as he was not having relationship with Meredith. If had turned out to be Silenzi's, it would have meant nothing as it was known he was having sex with her. If it had turned out to be of unknown origin, it still would have meant nothing as it could have been left by someone she slept with unknown to anyone else.

But I think the creme de la creme was his conclusion that the TMB and DNA negative footprints in the hallway were Amanda's in blood. Just nuts!
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
That was a good 'creme de la creme', but I think how Massei and Nencini reasoned that Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali were all credible and reliable witnesses might be even better. Oh wait, on second thought.... how can one top a sample that was TMB negative, human species negative and DNA negative becoming a sample of Meredith's DNA?

At the end of the day I find it really hard to know which I am most incredulous over because there are just so many to choose from.
I'll suggest that all these arbitrary "reasonings" have several causes or motivations:

1. The Italian judge first assumes that the accused are guilty. The the judge creates a "reasoning" or explanation of the evidence, even if arbitrary or absurd, to support that conclusion.

2. Specifically for the Knox - Sollecito case, the convicting judges sought to avoid placing responsibility or blame on the police or prosecution for any of their errors or misdeeds.

3. Specifically for the Knox - Sollecito case, the convicting judges sought to limit the admission of evidence, and align their interpretation of the alleged evidence, to minimize Guede's involvement in the crimes against Kercher so that their interpretations were not too inconsistent with Guede's statements.

There's another case, Stasi v. Italy 2693/17, recently communicated by the ECHR, that appears to illustrate how the Italian judicial system can function unfairly.

In that case, the alleged unfairness relates to the judges refusing to allow a critically important witness to testify at the most important stages of the trial proceedings. See (Communication in French):

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-212426

It took about 4 years and 9 months for the ECHR to Communicate the Stasi case after the application was lodged. In contrast, it took the ECHR about 2 years and 5 months to Communicate the Knox case after the application was lodged. See (Communication in French):

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-163098
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 13th October 2021, 11:03 AM   #1522
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
I'm not sure I agree with #1...that the judges assumed guilt from the start. At least, not intentionally. I think most people, either consciously or subconsciously, do assume anyone arrested for a crime is most likely guilty.

But I do agree with #2 and #3. I think the police, and by extension prosecutors, in Italy are protected. The very fact that they can charge a suspect or defendant with criminal calunnia for accusing them of damaging their "honor" by saying they were mistreated during an interrogation that is not video or audio recorded is absurd. These lawsuits are used as threats against anyone criticizing them. We saw this with Mignini and his numerous actual lawsuits or threats of lawsuits. As far as I'm aware, he never won any of those he actually lodged connected to the Kercher murder. Of course, there is that one against Sollecito and Gumbel for their book that they had to make a public apology to Mignini for!
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 13th October 2021, 01:22 PM   #1523
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,978
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm not sure I agree with #1...that the judges assumed guilt from the start. At least, not intentionally. I think most people, either consciously or subconsciously, do assume anyone arrested for a crime is most likely guilty.

I don't think this is about judges "pre-judging" people in quite the way you describe.

Rather, this is more about the strange - and fundamentally anti-judicial - way in which trials used to take place in Italy under the previous inquisitorial system, and specifically wrt the fact that even though Italy has now switched to the adversarial model of justice, it appears clear that there's still a reactionary inquisitorial mindset among the Italian judiciary.

Under the inquisitorial model, the PM was, on paper at least, an impartial servant of the state. He/she was (again, on paper) tasked with overseeing the investigation of a crime, and using all his/her skill and experience to determine "what had happened" - which obviously also included determining who had committed the crime. The trial was a means of testing the PM's theory of the crime, as well as giving the accused the (notional) chance to offer his/her own defence.

The huge systemic problem with this approach is that it almost totally reverses the burden of proof. Because in effect the court is being asked by the PM to accept his/her theory of the crime, unless there's compelling evidence that this theory is not correct. So in a very real sense, Italian courts in the inquisitorial system did start with a certain presumption of the guilt of whomever the PM had brought to trial.

The modern-day issue is this: even though by 2007 Italy had moved to the adversarial system, there's some fairly robust evidence that Italian criminal courts simply couldn't shake off their old ways of thinking and of doing things. It's therefore not a great stretch (IMO) to think that, for example, the Massei court judges started with at least a subconscious feeling a) that Mignini was a diligent, experienced and scrupulously fair/impartial/disinterested PM; and therefore b) that if he (Mignini) was bringing them a case in which he believed Knox and Sollecito were guilty of murder, he'd come to that conclusion for all the right/noble reasons; and therefore c) that their "starting point" in the trial ought to be to consider Knox & Sollecito guilty themselves.
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 13th October 2021, 01:37 PM   #1524
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I don't think this is about judges "pre-judging" people in quite the way you describe.

Rather, this is more about the strange - and fundamentally anti-judicial - way in which trials used to take place in Italy under the previous inquisitorial system, and specifically wrt the fact that even though Italy has now switched to the adversarial model of justice, it appears clear that there's still a reactionary inquisitorial mindset among the Italian judiciary.

Under the inquisitorial model, the PM was, on paper at least, an impartial servant of the state. He/she was (again, on paper) tasked with overseeing the investigation of a crime, and using all his/her skill and experience to determine "what had happened" - which obviously also included determining who had committed the crime. The trial was a means of testing the PM's theory of the crime, as well as giving the accused the (notional) chance to offer his/her own defence.

The huge systemic problem with this approach is that it almost totally reverses the burden of proof. Because in effect the court is being asked by the PM to accept his/her theory of the crime, unless there's compelling evidence that this theory is not correct. So in a very real sense, Italian courts in the inquisitorial system did start with a certain presumption of the guilt of whomever the PM had brought to trial.

The modern-day issue is this: even though by 2007 Italy had moved to the adversarial system, there's some fairly robust evidence that Italian criminal courts simply couldn't shake off their old ways of thinking and of doing things. It's therefore not a great stretch (IMO) to think that, for example, the Massei court judges started with at least a subconscious feeling a) that Mignini was a diligent, experienced and scrupulously fair/impartial/disinterested PM; and therefore b) that if he (Mignini) was bringing them a case in which he believed Knox and Sollecito were guilty of murder, he'd come to that conclusion for all the right/noble reasons; and therefore c) that their "starting point" in the trial ought to be to consider Knox & Sollecito guilty themselves.
I think we're in violent agreement here. Numbers wrote:

Quote:
1. The Italian judge first assumes that the accused are guilty.
When the defense has to basically prove the defendant is not guilty rather than the prosecution prove they are guilty, I think the judges almost have to assume their guilt and have to be proven otherwise.
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 13th October 2021, 03:38 PM   #1525
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think we're in violent agreement here. Numbers wrote:



When the defense has to basically prove the defendant is not guilty rather than the prosecution prove they are guilty, I think the judges almost have to assume their guilt and have to be proven otherwise.
I'm having a hard time finding any significant differences in what the three of you wrote (relative to #1).

What I struggle with is why the courts bent over backwards trying to make the prosecution's case work. I don't believe Massei, Nencini or any of the other professional judges sitting on those to courts were stupid, yet they made countless rulings that flew in the face of basic common sense. I can accept they started out with the assumption of guilt, but they still are professional judges who are supposed to listen to the evidence, evaluate the arguments and form logical conclusions, yet they consistently did just the opposite. Something was motivating them to side with the prosecution, even when the arguments were clearly unsubstantiated. I must have read Nencini's MR regarding Curatolo a dozen times and every time I did I came away with the same thought - they couldn't possibly be this stupid so what the hell is going on here. This was something more than just remnants of the old inquisitorial system.
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 13th October 2021, 05:02 PM   #1526
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm not sure I agree with #1...that the judges assumed guilt from the start. At least, not intentionally. I think most people, either consciously or subconsciously, do assume anyone arrested for a crime is most likely guilty.

But I do agree with #2 and #3. I think the police, and by extension prosecutors, in Italy are protected. The very fact that they can charge a suspect or defendant with criminal calunnia for accusing them of damaging their "honor" by saying they were mistreated during an interrogation that is not video or audio recorded is absurd. These lawsuits are used as threats against anyone criticizing them. We saw this with Mignini and his numerous actual lawsuits or threats of lawsuits. As far as I'm aware, he never won any of those he actually lodged connected to the Kercher murder. Of course, there is that one against Sollecito and Gumbel for their book that they had to make a public apology to Mignini for!
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think we're in violent agreement here. Numbers wrote:



When the defense has to basically prove the defendant is not guilty rather than the prosecution prove they are guilty, I think the judges almost have to assume their guilt and have to be proven otherwise.
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm having a hard time finding any significant differences in what the three of you wrote (relative to #1).

What I struggle with is why the courts bent over backwards trying to make the prosecution's case work. I don't believe Massei, Nencini or any of the other professional judges sitting on those to courts were stupid, yet they made countless rulings that flew in the face of basic common sense. I can accept they started out with the assumption of guilt, but they still are professional judges who are supposed to listen to the evidence, evaluate the arguments and form logical conclusions, yet they consistently did just the opposite. Something was motivating them to side with the prosecution, even when the arguments were clearly unsubstantiated. I must have read Nencini's MR regarding Curatolo a dozen times and every time I did I came away with the same thought - they couldn't possibly be this stupid so what the hell is going on here. This was something more than just remnants of the old inquisitorial system.
I should clarify that when I wrote:

1. The Italian judge first assumes that the accused are guilty. The the judge creates a "reasoning" or explanation of the evidence, even if arbitrary or absurd, to support that conclusion.

I did not intend to specify exactly at what time in the trial the (inquisitorial - style) Italian judge makes the assumption that the accused is guilty. It may not be the first day. But at some time during the trial that (inquisitorial - style) judge decides or assumes that the accused is guilty, perhaps relying on personal feelings or an (inquisitorial) respect for the broad judgment of the prosecution (even if, perhaps, not agreeing with every detail of the prosecution case).

Then, at the conclusion of the trial, the judge pronounces a sentence of conviction based upon the judge's subjective perspective.

At some point after the (inquisitorial - style) judge has decided or assumed the guilt of the accused, up to the publication of the motivation report, that judge constructs a "reasoning" which may include arbitrary or absurd elements which, presumably in the sincere but subjective opinion of the judge, combines the alleged evidence and the judge's speculations in a "rationale" to justify the conviction. Of course, objective observers cannot be sure whether or not a judge whose MR clearly includes absurd or arbitrary reasoning is truly sincere.

In contrast, the objective judge critically and skeptically evaluates the alleged evidence, does not favor the prosecution over the defense, enforces fairness in the trial, including respect for defense rights, and in the MR uses reasoning that is objectively reasonable.

However, in the Knox - Sollecito case, there are examples of judges who were mostly objective but departed into a more inquisitorial or subjective mode at certain points, perhaps to maintain the impunity of the police and prosecutor. I believe this is true for Hellmann in the MR reasoning convicting Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, and for Marasca in the MR reasoning defending the calunnia conviction against the suggestion that the ECHR would find that conviction based upon an unfair trial.
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 13th October 2021, 08:58 PM   #1527
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I should clarify that when I wrote:

....
At some point after the (inquisitorial - style) judge has decided or assumed the guilt of the accused, up to the publication of the motivation report, that judge constructs a "reasoning" which may include arbitrary or absurd elements which, presumably in the sincere but subjective opinion of the judge, combines the alleged evidence and the judge's speculations in a "rationale" to justify the conviction. Of course, objective observers cannot be sure whether or not a judge whose MR clearly includes absurd or arbitrary reasoning is truly sincere.

....
I am returning to this because I wish to suggest that the arbitrary or absurd elements of "reasoning" found in such Italian court motivation reports, as seen in the Knox - Sollecito case, are in reality not given in sincerity. I suggest that they are, even if perhaps obvious and clumsy, efforts to force a particular outcome which the judge knows is unfair and unjust, but meets some perceived need, such as, for example, providing impunity for the police and prosecutor, or enforcing an authoritarian approach to the functioning of the judicial system. That is, the prosecutor - a member of the judiciary - must be shown to be right even in the face of contrary objective evidence.

I suggest it is not that unusual for persons who believe they need to support a false premise to adopt false "reasoning" to give that support. In situations where there is little or no penalty if the false "reasoning" is detected, clearly arbitrary or absurd elements may be "safely" included in the "reasoning". And perhaps the false "reasoning" is sufficient to convince or satisfy some of the audience to which it is directed.

There are some examples from the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy of the Italian government providing obviously false "reasoning" in a seeming attempt to "convince" the ECHR that Italy had not violated Knox's Convention rights in the trial convicting her calunnia against Lumumba.

One example is Italy's comments to the ECHR claiming that Knox had been convicted of calunnia against Lumumba based not only on her statements during the interrogation and "spontaneous" statement to Mignini, but on the basis of a "multitude of other circumstances" as described in the Massei court motivation report. And Italy noted that under CSC case-law (jurisprudence), "spontaneous statements made by a person subjected to investigations in the absence of a lawyer may in any case be used when they constitute an offense in themselves, as in this case." (See paragraphs 142 - 143)

Of course, none of Italy's statements in paragraphs 142 - 143 were germane to the issue of the Convention rights under examination. And the "multitude of other circumstances" were not detailed by Italy in the ECHR judgment and indeed were falsehoods or misinterpretations of fact in the Massei court MR.

ECHR case-law and Italy's practices were the relevant factors in establishing whether or not there was a violation of the Convention. In its argument as in its practices, Italy totally ignored ECHR case-law, and the ECHR found it in violation of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c (unfair trial by denial of legal representation [of a suspect under interrogation]). (See paragraphs 146 - 167)

Last edited by Numbers; 13th October 2021 at 09:02 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 14th October 2021, 09:25 AM   #1528
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
....
There are some examples from the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy of the Italian government providing obviously false "reasoning" in a seeming attempt to "convince" the ECHR that Italy had not violated Knox's Convention rights in the trial convicting her calunnia against Lumumba.

One example is Italy's comments to the ECHR claiming that Knox had been convicted of calunnia against Lumumba based not only on her statements during the interrogation and "spontaneous" statement to Mignini, but on the basis of a "multitude of other circumstances" as described in the Massei court motivation report. And Italy noted that under CSC case-law (jurisprudence), "spontaneous statements made by a person subjected to investigations in the absence of a lawyer may in any case be used when they constitute an offense in themselves, as in this case." (See paragraphs 142 - 143)

Of course, none of Italy's statements in paragraphs 142 - 143 were germane to the issue of the Convention rights under examination. And the "multitude of other circumstances" were not detailed by Italy in the ECHR judgment and indeed were falsehoods or misinterpretations of fact in the Massei court MR.

ECHR case-law and Italy's practices were the relevant factors in establishing whether or not there was a violation of the Convention. In its argument as in its practices, Italy totally ignored ECHR case-law, and the ECHR found it in violation of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c (unfair trial by denial of legal representation [of a suspect under interrogation]). (See paragraphs 146 - 167)
It may be of interest to examine in some detail the ECHR judgment in paragraphs 146 - 167 to understand that in response to Italy's irrelevant argument, the ECHR focused on the Convention and its case-law. The ECHR did not descend into mere contradiction of the irrelevant parts of Italy's argument.

Here's the first section (consisting of one paragraph) of the ECHR legal analysis of Knox's claim that her rights under Convention Article 6.1 and 6.3c were violated, and Italy's counter argument. It is the ECHR's statement of the general principles. Because the ECHR follows precedent and the Convention, its rulings are largely predictable.*

Quote:
146. The general principles concerning the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal law aspect, the right to the assistance of a lawyer and the overall fairness of criminal proceedings, the temporary restriction of access to a lawyer for compelling reasons and the impact of procedural shortcomings at the investigative stage on the overall fairness of the criminal trial are established, in whole or in part, in Simeonovi v. Bulgaria ([GC], no.21980 / 04, §§ 110-120, 12 May 2017), Ibrahim and others v. The United Kingdom ([GC], nos.50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 249-274, 13 September 2016), Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no.36391 / 02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008) and Beuze v. Belgium ([GC], no.71409 / 10, §§ 119-150, 9 November 2018).
In the second section, paragraphs 147 - 152, the judgment follows a logical chain of reasoning to establish that Knox was indeed a suspect during the relevant events under ECHR case-law.

The ECHR raises the question, based on the behavior of the police toward Knox and their initiation of questioning even before Knox was in an interrogation room, whether Knox was a suspect in the crimes against Kercher at the very beginning of the 5 - 6 November interrogation. In any case, Italy itself acknowledges that Knox was formally a suspect following her 1:45 am statement during the interrogation. Thus, at the latest, she was a suspect when she made her second statement at 5:45 am to the prosecutor. She had not been told her procedural rights at that time nor in the previous interrogation.

The ECHR points out that under its international law, a person is a suspect if he or she is under a criminal charge as defined by its case-law. "There is a “criminal charge” when a person is officially indicted by the competent authorities or when the acts carried out by them because of the suspicions weighing against him have significant repercussions on his situation. The ECHR implication (paragraph 149) is that this certainly applies to Knox at the time or preceeding her 1:45 am statement. Italy acknowledges that Knox became a suspect after that statement. Therefore, Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c and associated case-law apply in this case (paragraph 152).

In the third section, paragraphs 153 - 157, the ECHR analyzes whether Italy had any justification under ECHR case-law in denying Knox a lawyer during the relevant time, when she was a suspect.

The ECHR first notes that the Italian courts stated that the statements made by Knox during 5 - 6 November questionings could not be used (under Italian law) in her trial for the crimes against Kercher. However, according to the Italian Government, these same statements, made in the absence of legal counsel, could be used against Knox in a trial for the crime of calunnia (malicious false accusation), based upon Italian case-law, insofar as they were in themselves a criminal offense. (Paragraph 153)

However, under ECHR case-law, restrictions on access to a lawyer in the pre-trial phase are allowed only under compelling circumstances and in exceptional cases; they must be temporary and based upon an individual assessment of the particular circumstances of that specific case.

Yet, the Italian Government argues that the trial and conviction of Knox for calunnia was justified under a general Italian case-law interpretation that spontaneous statements made by a person subjected to investigations (questioning or interrogation) in the absence of a lawyer may be used against that person insofar as the statements were in themselves criminal acts.

As established by ECHR case-law, the general nature of this exception to established ECHR case-law as claimed by Italy invalidates it. The Italian Government provided no exceptional circumstances to justify its use of the statements to try and to convict Knox. The ECHR therefore finds no compelling reason to justify the restrictions on the right to a lawyer in this case.

In the fourth section, paragraphs 158 to 165, the ECHR reviews whether or not the proceedings (questionings and trial) can be considered "fair" under the Convention and its case-law.

The ECHR states that under its case-law, for the circumstances (of interrogations without a lawyer leading to a conviction), it must carry out a strict review. Under ECHR case-law, the Italian Government is thus obligated to prove, in a convincing demonstration, that despite the applicant Knox being denied her rights under the Convention during the interrogations, the criminal trial (including the pre-trial interrogations) which convicted her of calunnia was nevertheless fair overall. "The failure of the Government to establish compelling reasons weighs heavily in the balance and may tip the Court [ECHR] in the direction of [finding] a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)...."

The ECHR points out Knox's state of vulnerability as "a young foreign girl aged twenty at the material time who had been in Italy for a short time and did not speak Italian fluently...."

The ECHR also notes that "just a few hours after the impugned hearings, the applicant [Knox] promptly retracted her statements, in particular by means of a text drafted on her initiative on 6 November 2007 at around 1 p.m. and handed over to the police ..., another text drafted on November 9, 2007 for the attention of her lawyers ..., and the telephone call to her mother on November 10, 2007 while the line was bugged. The Court notes that, however, six months later, on May 14, 2008, the applicant was indicted for calunnia [malicious false accusation]."

The ECHR notes that the Boninsegna court established that Knox's statements were taken "in a context of strong psychological pressure".

The ECHR notes that "the impugned statements in themselves constituted the offense with which the applicant [Knox] was charged and, therefore, the material evidence for her verdict of guilty of calunnia [malicious false accusation]." {This is significant since if this were not found to be a violation of international law, abusive authorities could coerce persons to make statements that were then unfairly judged to be criminal acts.}

Furthermore, the ECHR notes that the circumstances under which the impugned statetments were obtained were never investigated, although as pointed out elsewhere in the ECHR judgment, Knox and her lawyers had repeatedly credibly claimed before the Italian court that they were coerced. [According to ECHR case-law, failure to investigate such credible claims is a violation of Convention Aricle 3, procedural limb, as found in another section of the judgment.]

The ECHR notes again that Knox was not informed of her procedural rights, in particular during the 5:45 am statement; there is no record of her being informed of her rights in the case file.

In the Conclusion, paragraphs 166 - 167, the ECHR states that the Italian Government had not shown that the restriction on Knox's right to legal counsel during the hearing that lead to the 5:45 am statement had not irreparably damaged the fairness of the trial for calunnia as a whole. Therefore, there was a violation of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c by Italy in this case.


* Google translation with my help; "GC" in an ECHR case citation means a ruling made by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.

Last edited by Numbers; 14th October 2021 at 09:40 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 15th October 2021, 08:23 AM   #1529
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
....
There are some examples from the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy of the Italian government providing obviously false "reasoning" in a seeming attempt to "convince" the ECHR that Italy had not violated Knox's Convention rights in the trial convicting her calunnia against Lumumba.

....
I suggest that when Italy or other respondent states present arbitrary or absurd arguments in a seeming attempt to "convince" the ECHR of the legality of practices obviously contrary to the Convention or ECHR case-law, the real motivation of the respondent state is to satisfy a domestic audience.

For example, in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy, the Italian Government argued that Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba was not a violation of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c because, although under Italian law (CPP Article 63; the statements could not be used under Italian law because they were made without a lawyer and without the proper procedural warnings) her 6 November 2007 statements could not be used against her, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) case-law (jurisprudence) allowed the statements to be used against her in the calunnia trial because the statements in themselves were criminal acts, but the statements were to be excluded from the trial for the crimes against Kercher.

The Italian Government, having presented that argument (and others) fruitlessly in the ECHR case before the Chamber, then attempted to have the case heard by the Grand Chamber. That request for referral was denied by the ECHR review panel.

Thus, the Italian Government is able to say to the proponents of the CSC case-law exception that that exception is indeed and without any question not allowed under the international law that Italy has agreed, in its Constitution and the Council of Europe treaty, to accept. It therefore cannot be used in the future based on international law, but Italy has not stated that it has changed the practice.

The Italian Government has acknowledged the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy in its 10 January 2020 communication to the Council of Europe. What is lacking, so far, is the Italian Government's Action Plan describing how it proposes to change its future practices and to redress its violations of Knox's rights.

Last edited by Numbers; 15th October 2021 at 08:25 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 16th October 2021, 08:05 PM   #1530
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
....

The Italian Government has acknowledged the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy in its 10 January 2020 communication to the Council of Europe. What is lacking, so far, is the Italian Government's Action Plan describing how it proposes to change its future practices and to redress its violations of Knox's rights.
Much attention has been focused in this forum and elsewhere on details of the alleged evidence in the case or on the real or imagined behavior of Knox and Sollecito.

In terms of international (Council of Europe) and Italian law, however, the lasting focus will be on the violations of human rights of legal defense by Italy and the way Italy addresses those violations.

For example, the case Knox v. Italy is cited as important illustrative ECHR case-law in the current edition of the ECHR's Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights - Right to a fair trial (criminal limb) (revised 31 August 2021).*

The citations occur in paragraph 443 (p. 80 - 81) in the section on the right to a lawyer (Article 6.3c) and in paragraph 555 (p. 101) on the right to an interpreter (Article 6.3e).

Knox v. Italy also is cited in the Italian language edition of the Guide (revised 30 April 2020), but in paragraphs 421 (p. 103) and 531 (p. 130).*

* Sources:

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/G...iminal_ENG.pdf

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/G...iminal_ITA.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 16th October 2021 at 08:24 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 18th October 2021, 08:28 AM   #1531
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Much attention has been focused in this forum and elsewhere on details of the alleged evidence in the case ....

....
There is a commentary, apparently not previously noted on this forum, by some Italian lawyers on the evaluation of DNA evidence by the judges in the Knox - Sollecito case.
.
The 2016 commentary, written following the definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the CSC, is in Italian with the title and abstract translated.*

The Italian title is: La prova del DNA nella pronuncia della cassazione sul caso Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito

while the English title given is: DNA Evidence and the Amanda Knox Case: the Supreme Court Decision.

The authors are Franco Taroni, Joelle Vuille, and Luca Lupária, who are respectively Professor at the University of Losanna, Professor at the University of Neuchâtel, and Professor of Criminal Procedural Law at the University of Roma Tre. (Luca Luparia is a co-editor, with Mitja Gialuz and Federica Scarpa, of the reference book The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, Wolters Kluwer Italia, (C) 2014.)

Google translation (with my help) of the commentary gives this interesting statement from its conclusion, shown first in the original Italian:

Quote:
Nella vicenda Kercher, oltretutto, si può osservare un fenomeno ricorrente nei giudizi ad alto contenuto tecnologico: la riluttanza dei giudici del merito a dichiarare irricevibili le evidenze che siano state raccolte in violazione delle precauzioni atte ad evitare possibili contaminazioni della scena del crimine. Una forma di sottovalutazione delle regole a salvaguardia dell’integrità e della genuinità della prova, frutto di una interpretazione non corretta del principio del libero convincimento del giudice.
Quote:
Furthermore, in the Kercher affair, one can observe a recurring phenomenon in judgments of the [DNA] technology: the reluctance of the judges of merit to declare inadmissible the evidence that has been collected in violation of the precautions aimed at avoiding possible contamination of the crime scene. [This is] a form of underestimation of the rules [required] to safeguard the integrity and authenticity of the evidence, the result of an incorrect interpretation of the principle that the judge may freely form an opinion.

* https://dpc-rivista-trimestrale.crim...uille_1_16.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 18th October 2021 at 08:30 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 18th October 2021, 10:09 AM   #1532
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,080
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There is a commentary, apparently not previously noted on this forum, by some Italian lawyers on the evaluation of DNA evidence by the judges in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Quote:
Furthermore, in the Kercher affair, one can observe a recurring phenomenon in judgments of the [DNA] technology: the reluctance of the judges of merit to declare inadmissible the evidence that has been collected in violation of the precautions aimed at avoiding possible contamination of the crime scene. [This is] a form of underestimation of the rules [required] to safeguard the integrity and authenticity of the evidence, the result of an incorrect interpretation of the principle that the judge may freely form an opinion.
A continuing theme..... that aside from Stefano Maffei (himself a law professor of unassailed repute), there exists absolutely no legal or forensic opinion either in or outside of Italy which supports the convictions of 2009 and 2014.

They all buttress the eventual acquittals of 2015 - which were called exonerations by Judge Boninsegna.

Even Maffei has been relatively silent since 2015. His thesis had been that even with the lack of incriminating evidence, the sheer amount of it cannot be ignored. Breadth, in his view, trumps depth. (Even when there was no 'there' there in the breadth! Which perhaps explains his silence.)

What remains? What remains is Italy correcting the calunnia conviction as ordered by the ECHR.
__________________
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 18th October 2021, 10:38 AM   #1533
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
A continuing theme..... that aside from Stefano Maffei (himself a law professor of unassailed repute), there exists absolutely no legal or forensic opinion either in or outside of Italy which supports the convictions of 2009 and 2014.

They all buttress the eventual acquittals of 2015 - which were called exonerations by Judge Boninsegna.

Even Maffei has been relatively silent since 2015. His thesis had been that even with the lack of incriminating evidence, the sheer amount of it cannot be ignored. Breadth, in his view, trumps depth. (Even when there was no 'there' there in the breadth! Which perhaps explains his silence.)

What remains? What remains is Italy correcting the calunnia conviction as ordered by the ECHR.
Yes.

But there is also the possibility that what happened in the Knox - Sollecito case is not an isolated series of investigative and judicial errors and misconduct, but something more ingrained in the Italian legal system.

There's a recent (published 18 October 2021) ECHR Communication to Italy in the case Intranuovo v. Italy, brought by the mother of a young man who allegedly committed suicide while a corporal in Italy's military forces. She alleges that his death was not properly investigated or adjudicated, and thus Italy violated its responsibilities under Convention Article 2.

Here are some of the ECHR's questions to Italy on this matter:

Quote:
1. ... do the conclusions reached by the domestic authorities constitute a “plausible explanation” for his death within the meaning of the Court’s case-law ...?

2. ... was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2.1. Did the domestic authorities make a serious attempt to establish the circumstances surrounding Mr Drago’s death ...? Did the authorities take all the reasonable measures available to them to secure evidence concerning the impugned events?

2.2. Can it be said that the domestic investigation’s conclusions were based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements?

....

2.4. Are the decisions taken by the domestic authorities adequately reasoned and do they take into account the applicant’s submissions made to those authorities?
....
With reference to question 2.2., in the request to discontinue the proceedings of 27 July 2017, in which the prosecutor assessed the expert reports on the cause of death and recalled that the judge is the “peritus peritorum”, {"expert of the experts"} what evidence was relied on in order to substantiate the thesis that Mr Drago had committed suicide? ....
Source: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-212645

Last edited by Numbers; 18th October 2021 at 11:44 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 18th October 2021, 12:58 PM   #1534
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
This article by the Italians is just further proof that the knife and bra 'evidence' is not credible. I've got a woman in another forum who is absolutely convinced of Knox's guilt based on statement analysis! She will not address the lack of forensic evidence in Kercher's bedroom. She insists that Knox has never given a credible denial of guilt. When I quoted and cited such denials, she says they're not credible according to statement analysis because Knox added unnecessary words which shows she lying or put "I did not kill Meredith " last in a list of other denials.

“I am innocent. I did not kill, I did not rape, I did not steal, I did not plot or instigate. I did not kill Meredith, I did not take part in her murder."

This is the woman's post to me:

"A reliable denial consists of first person singular (I), past tense denial (did not/didn't), followed by the specific allegation, with absolutely no qualifying language. In this case, "I did not kill Meredith", as a stand alone statement, free of qualifying language before, in between, or after. Now look back at her statements, all containing passive language, heavy qualifiers, distancing language, and exceptionally unreliable denials."

As you can see, Knox's statement meets her alleged criteria of what constitutes a 'credible denial', yet she denies it does. She even said " Statement Analysis has been proven to be nearly 100% accurate when performed by qualified analysts." When I cited studies that show otherwise, she just ignores them and repeats that she's correct. Typical willful blindness and intellectual dishonesty.
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 18th October 2021, 01:16 PM   #1535
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 812
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This article by the Italians is just further proof that the knife and bra 'evidence' is not credible. I've got a woman in another forum who is absolutely convinced of Knox's guilt based on statement analysis! She will not address the lack of forensic evidence in Kercher's bedroom. She insists that Knox has never given a credible denial of guilt. When I quoted and cited such denials, she says they're not credible according to statement analysis because Knox added unnecessary words which shows she lying or put "I did not kill Meredith " last in a list of other denials.

“I am innocent. I did not kill, I did not rape, I did not steal, I did not plot or instigate. I did not kill Meredith, I did not take part in her murder."

This is the woman's post to me:

"A reliable denial consists of first person singular (I), past tense denial (did not/didn't), followed by the specific allegation, with absolutely no qualifying language. In this case, "I did not kill Meredith", as a stand alone statement, free of qualifying language before, in between, or after. Now look back at her statements, all containing passive language, heavy qualifiers, distancing language, and exceptionally unreliable denials."

As you can see, Knox's statement meets her alleged criteria of what constitutes a 'credible denial', yet she denies it does. She even said " Statement Analysis has been proven to be nearly 100% accurate when performed by qualified analysts." When I cited studies that show otherwise, she just ignores them and repeats that she's correct. Typical willful blindness and intellectual dishonesty.
If the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk why would you need to resort to statement analysis rather than just let the evidence speak for itself.
Welshman 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 18th October 2021, 02:04 PM   #1536
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
If the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk why would you need to resort to statement analysis rather than just let the evidence speak for itself.
Exactly. This same woman has confidently and repeatedly described Knox as a pathological liar, narcissist and psychopath. For her, actual forensic evidence...or lack of... means nothing; it's all about personality and her own dislike of Knox. This is what I find to be pretty consistent among guilters. They can't really attack the facts so they attack the person and resort to pseudosciences like body language and statement analysis.
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 19th October 2021, 06:46 AM   #1537
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
....

But there is also the possibility that what happened in the Knox - Sollecito case is not an isolated series of investigative and judicial errors and misconduct, but something more ingrained in the Italian legal system.
....
Here are the total amounts of Just Satisfaction awarded by the ECHR against Italy and against the UK for the years 2011 to 2021, rounded to thousands of Euros. The amounts for 2021 represent year-to-date data.

Italy: 293,357,000 Euros (over 293 million Euros)

UK: ..... 3,056,000 Euros (over 3 million Euros)

This difference may give some hint as to the difference in judicial and administrative justice and order in Italy as compared to the UK.

Sources:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/italy

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/united-kingdom
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 19th October 2021, 09:52 AM   #1538
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,080
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly. This same woman has confidently and repeatedly described Knox as a pathological liar, narcissist and psychopath. For her, actual forensic evidence...or lack of... means nothing; it's all about personality and her own dislike of Knox. This is what I find to be pretty consistent among guilters. They can't really attack the facts so they attack the person and resort to pseudosciences like body language and statement analysis.
.... and what is their source of data?

One week out of the life of a random 20-year-old, ensnared in a legal system and language-culture completely foreign to her. To repeat - one week of data, mainly gleaned from the year 2007 and tabloid excesses. Fourteen years ago!

My own claim to fame is that I've had many, many private PM's with guilters of all stripes and varieties. The last one being some years' ago. We were able to lower the temperature (mainly) of trying to best one another in the public eye!

One guilter admitted as much, that his/her 'data-set' was quite limited, we were able to agree on that. We were able to agree that neither Knox nor Sollecito had shown that offending behaviour either before the crime, or since their release. (The guilter countered, though, that that one-week period in which the data set was collected was the behaviour most relevant to the crime - that even the nicest people can commit crime, so it was - for him/her - irrelevant that they were nice people outside of that one-week period.)

But even that person agreed that actual forensics (or lack of same) played 1000x the role than statement analysis, personality quirks, or body-language. Or even people proven to be deceptive by the standards of the pseudosciences. I wish there had been more guilters willing to publicly say the things I learned in the PM's.

I feel the need to say more about what I'd learned in those PM's.

*************

Ok, here's another, unrelated to what StacyHS wrote.

In a PM, I asked a fellow - a frequent poster to the PMF guilt sites - why he was stuck on one narrow point, which for him pointed to guilt for both of them.

His conditions for talking with me in PM included that I not 'out' him for talking with me privately, as he feared ridicule on the PMF sites.

Yet in one PM-exchange, he said he was tired of repeating his points, and simply gave me a link to the relevant PMF-page where he said he had dealt with the subject at length. I read dutifully read the link, but continued saying to him (privately) that he had not proven anything, and that his underlying fact-set was suspect.

Ok - to his beouf me, about which he went on and on about on the PMF site, about what a horrible person I was.

A few weeks later, the points-in-question came up again in a public forum, either here or on IIP, I cannot remember. The question was asked, "How do guilters deal with......." so I simply posted the link to the PMF site as given to me, without identifying how I received the link. All anyone could assume was that I'd found it for myself and was passing it on - no reference to the PM convo or who it was with.

He publicly accused me of outing him, and violating the agreement that I not say we'd been privately conversing. Indeed, it was he who outed himself! But you'd think I'd just burned down an orphanage. In any event, it was experiences like that which caused me to refrain from seeking out guilters for private-convos.

There are more stories like this. All of which are now under the heading of, "Dude, you have to get a life!"
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 19th October 2021 at 09:55 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 19th October 2021, 11:29 AM   #1539
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,193
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I should clarify that when I wrote:

1. The Italian judge first assumes that the accused are guilty. The the judge creates a "reasoning" or explanation of the evidence, even if arbitrary or absurd, to support that conclusion.

I did not intend to specify exactly at what time in the trial the (inquisitorial - style) Italian judge makes the assumption that the accused is guilty. It may not be the first day. But at some time during the trial that (inquisitorial - style) judge decides or assumes that the accused is guilty, perhaps relying on personal feelings or an (inquisitorial) respect for the broad judgment of the prosecution (even if, perhaps, not agreeing with every detail of the prosecution case).

Then, at the conclusion of the trial, the judge pronounces a sentence of conviction based upon the judge's subjective perspective.

At some point after the (inquisitorial - style) judge has decided or assumed the guilt of the accused, up to the publication of the motivation report, that judge constructs a "reasoning" which may include arbitrary or absurd elements which, presumably in the sincere but subjective opinion of the judge, combines the alleged evidence and the judge's speculations in a "rationale" to justify the conviction. Of course, objective observers cannot be sure whether or not a judge whose MR clearly includes absurd or arbitrary reasoning is truly sincere.

In contrast, the objective judge critically and skeptically evaluates the alleged evidence, does not favor the prosecution over the defense, enforces fairness in the trial, including respect for defense rights, and in the MR uses reasoning that is objectively reasonable.

However, in the Knox - Sollecito case, there are examples of judges who were mostly objective but departed into a more inquisitorial or subjective mode at certain points, perhaps to maintain the impunity of the police and prosecutor. I believe this is true for Hellmann in the MR reasoning convicting Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, and for Marasca in the MR reasoning defending the calunnia conviction against the suggestion that the ECHR would find that conviction based upon an unfair trial.
May I put a slightly alternative view?

The way that the Italian court works is that the lay judges (starting with the youngest) give a verdict so the professional judges may be faced with a majority verdict of the lay members for guilt by the time they vote. This may then influence them if they are dubious to go with the guilty verdict. It is only after the guilty verdict that they then have to construct the explanation for the verdict. So necessarily the explanation is constructed with the intent to prove guilt. (I have been unable to find out if a verdict has to be based on a unanimous opinion or a majority opinion or if the professional judges have a veto.)

The explanation may represent the discussion and views of those lay judges that believed the accused guilty, but I am sure it would also include some post hoc justification. I think in some cases we see an attempt to justify the verdict of guilt despite the presence of evidence that does not support it. At this point in constructing the narrative the verdict has already been arrived at so the evidence has to be interrupted on the basis the accused are guilty.

What there does not seem to be an option for is the judge writing the justification for the verdict saying, 'This does not make sense now I have put it all down in black and white, I think we should go back and rethink our verdict'.
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 19th October 2021, 01:00 PM   #1540
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
May I put a slightly alternative view?

The way that the Italian court works is that the lay judges (starting with the youngest) give a verdict so the professional judges may be faced with a majority verdict of the lay members for guilt by the time they vote. This may then influence them if they are dubious to go with the guilty verdict. It is only after the guilty verdict that they then have to construct the explanation for the verdict. So necessarily the explanation is constructed with the intent to prove guilt. (I have been unable to find out if a verdict has to be based on a unanimous opinion or a majority opinion or if the professional judges have a veto.)

The explanation may represent the discussion and views of those lay judges that believed the accused guilty, but I am sure it would also include some post hoc justification. I think in some cases we see an attempt to justify the verdict of guilt despite the presence of evidence that does not support it. At this point in constructing the narrative the verdict has already been arrived at so the evidence has to be interrupted on the basis the accused are guilty.

What there does not seem to be an option for is the judge writing the justification for the verdict saying, 'This does not make sense now I have put it all down in black and white, I think we should go back and rethink our verdict'.
Planigale, thanks for providing this alternative explanation.

My understanding is that in an Assize court, which has a group of 5 lay judges and two professional judges, the voting to determine the verdict begins at the conclusion of the "debate" or testimonial part of the proceeding, with the order of voting beginning with the youngest lay judge, continuing in order until the oldest lay judge votes, followed by the "reporting" or counselor judge and ending with the senior judge (who is the president of that Assize court).

In the Knox - Sollecito case, the Massei, Hellmann, and Nencini courts were Assize courts, where, the named judge is the president of that court.

The decision is based on the majority vote, the voting takes place in chambers and there is no public announcement of any dissents.

It is not clear to what extent the professional judges influence the voting. For example, if the professional judges realize the evidence is, under Italian law, insufficient to declare a conviction, do they inform the lay judges? Can the professional judges ask the lay judges to vote again if the professionals disagree with the result of the lay judges' votes?

One should also examine how the president of the court, the senior professional judge, conducts the trial. It is that judge who apparently solely (or perhaps with the other professional judge) decides what evidence to admit or exclude and any other critical judicial decisions during the trial.

Thus, Massei would not allow referral of Knox's allegations of mistreatment to be sent to a prosecutor, but did allow Mignini to take them in order to file charges against her of calunnia against the police. Massei also did not seek an independent analysis of the DNA forensics, while Hellmann agreed to this defense request.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th October 2021 at 01:02 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 19th October 2021, 03:12 PM   #1541
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,193
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Planigale, thanks for providing this alternative explanation.

My understanding is that in an Assize court, which has a group of 5 lay judges and two professional judges, the voting to determine the verdict begins at the conclusion of the "debate" or testimonial part of the proceeding, with the order of voting beginning with the youngest lay judge, continuing in order until the oldest lay judge votes, followed by the "reporting" or counselor judge and ending with the senior judge (who is the president of that Assize court).

In the Knox - Sollecito case, the Massei, Hellmann, and Nencini courts were Assize courts, where, the named judge is the president of that court.

The decision is based on the majority vote, the voting takes place in chambers and there is no public announcement of any dissents.

It is not clear to what extent the professional judges influence the voting. For example, if the professional judges realize the evidence is, under Italian law, insufficient to declare a conviction, do they inform the lay judges? Can the professional judges ask the lay judges to vote again if the professionals disagree with the result of the lay judges' votes?

One should also examine how the president of the court, the senior professional judge, conducts the trial. It is that judge who apparently solely (or perhaps with the other professional judge) decides what evidence to admit or exclude and any other critical judicial decisions during the trial.

Thus, Massei would not allow referral of Knox's allegations of mistreatment to be sent to a prosecutor, but did allow Mignini to take them in order to file charges against her of calunnia against the police. Massei also did not seek an independent analysis of the DNA forensics, while Hellmann agreed to this defense request.
I have been unable to find details of exactly how the system works in practice. But it does seem as if the five lay judges could vote for guilt and the two professional judges are then left with having to construct a narrative explaining guilt even if they felt the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt under Italian law. In English law where the prosecution fails to make a case, judges can instruct the jury to return a not guilty verdict, it does not appear there is the same option in Italian law. Of course the professional judges may be very directive (or not) to the lay judges about how to interpret evidence during the proceedings, but it does not appear they can tell the lay judges to rethink their opinion.

It would appear so long as four of the five lay judges vote for guilt the opinions of the professional judges are irrelevant.
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 19th October 2021, 04:55 PM   #1542
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,080
Originally Posted by Numbers
The decision is based on the majority vote, the voting takes place in chambers and there is no public announcement of any dissents.

It is not clear to what extent the professional judges influence the voting.
IIRC, Judge Nencini was censured after the 2014 conviction for releasing to the press that a lay judge had come to him, post decision, to express doubts about the case. Nencini told the press that the woman had been confused because she was hearing one set of evidence in court and another set of evidence in the media. The thing that got Nencini in trouble, again IIRC, was that he talked publicly about back-room deliberations.
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I have been unable to find details of exactly how the system works in practice. But it does seem as if the five lay judges could vote for guilt and the two professional judges are then left with having to construct a narrative explaining guilt even if they felt the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt under Italian law. In English law where the prosecution fails to make a case, judges can instruct the jury to return a not guilty verdict, it does not appear there is the same option in Italian law. Of course the professional judges may be very directive (or not) to the lay judges about how to interpret evidence during the proceedings, but it does not appear they can tell the lay judges to rethink their opinion.

It would appear so long as four of the five lay judges vote for guilt the opinions of the professional judges are irrelevant.
In Canada, it is usually illegal for jury members to discuss their deliberations. They are sworn to secrecy. The only exception I can think of was the case of Gillian Guess, a Vancouver woman who was convicted in 1998 of obstruction of justice after becoming romantically involved with a murder defendant while she was a juror in his 1995 trial.

To convict Guess, details of the 1995 jury deliberation needed to be entered into the 1998 trial against her.

As such, juries do not publish reasons for judgement. It is simply impossible to know why a jury either convicted or acquitted, or what pieces of evidence were deemed important or not.

Paradoxically, in a bench trial (Judge alone), the judge acts as the finder of fact like a jury, and in convicting or acquitting is required to publish a reason for judgement.

The system in Canada avoids the problem that Planigale suggests plagues Italy. However, Canada has had many, many notorious wrongful convictions - in a jury trial it is impossible to know what went into jurors' thinking in wrongfully convicting. In bench trials, it is often quite apparent why a wrongful conviction happened, when reading the required written reason for judement.
__________________
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 19th October 2021, 07:20 PM   #1543
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I have been unable to find details of exactly how the system works in practice. But it does seem as if the five lay judges could vote for guilt and the two professional judges are then left with having to construct a narrative explaining guilt even if they felt the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt under Italian law. In English law where the prosecution fails to make a case, judges can instruct the jury to return a not guilty verdict, it does not appear there is the same option in Italian law. Of course the professional judges may be very directive (or not) to the lay judges about how to interpret evidence during the proceedings, but it does not appear they can tell the lay judges to rethink their opinion.

It would appear so long as four of the five lay judges vote for guilt the opinions of the professional judges are irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
IIRC, Judge Nencini was censured after the 2014 conviction for releasing to the press that a lay judge had come to him, post decision, to express doubts about the case. Nencini told the press that the woman had been confused because she was hearing one set of evidence in court and another set of evidence in the media. The thing that got Nencini in trouble, again IIRC, was that he talked publicly about back-room deliberations.

...
Paradoxically, in a bench trial (Judge alone), the judge acts as the finder of fact like a jury, and in convicting or acquitting is required to publish a reason for judgement.

The system in Canada avoids the problem that Planigale suggests plagues Italy. However, Canada has had many, many notorious wrongful convictions - in a jury trial it is impossible to know what went into jurors' thinking in wrongfully convicting. In bench trials, it is often quite apparent why a wrongful conviction happened, when reading the required written reason for judement.
In a jury criminal trial, the verdict of the jury is public while its reasoning on the facts is undisclosed but presumably will closely conform to either that of the prosecution (for a conviction) or to that of the defense (for an acquittal). The legal reasoning of the jury according to law must conform to the law as written in statute and defined or interpreted for the jury by the judge.

I suggest that when juries wrongfully convict, it is likely due to factors in the trial including but limited to false testimony, false confession, mistaken identification, misleading forensic evidence, or inadequate defense counsel. However, in some cases, it may be due to prejudice against the defendant or lack of skeptical review of the prosecution case.

For details of the operation of the Italian Assize court, I only have the limited information available in the Italian Code of Criminal Conduct (CPP).

It is clear from the CPP that the President of the court bench directs the proceedings including the deliberations after the trial is closed. The bench consists of the senior professional judge - who is the President, the second professional judge - who is called the reporting judge or counselor, and the five lay judges.

CPP Article 525 provides that the judgment shall be deliberated "immediately" after the closure of the trial. (The President of the court bench declares the trial closed after the debate is complete.)

CPP Article 526 provides that the judge(s) shall not use evidence during the deliberation except that which has been lawfully gathered during the trial. In particular, the evidence offered in statements by someone who has intentionally avoided examination by the accused or the accused's lawyer shall not be used to establish guilt. (This last was not obeyed by the Nencini court, for example; the Marasca CSC panel called Nencini on it. But note how the Nencini court chose to violate the procedural law.)

CPP Article 527 has 3 paragraphs:

Paragraph 1 provides that the bench, under the supervision of the President of the court bench, shall separately first resolve any remaining preliminary issue or any other matter pertaining to the trial. If the examination of the merits of the case is not precluded by the vote (on the preliminary issues?), the issues of fact and law related to the charge, and, if necessary (in case of a conviction), the application of penalties and security measures as well as civil liability are decided.

Paragraph 2 provides that all the judges state their opinions and vote on each question regardless of the vote cast on the others. The President collects the votes and votes last. If there is a tribunal of professional judges, the least senior judge votes first. In an assize court, the lay judges vote before the professional judges, and the youngest lay judge votes first.

Paragraph 3 provides that if for the vote on a penalty or security measure to be imposed there are more than two opinions, the votes for the most severe measure shall be given to the next-most severe measure until there is a majority. If there is a tie, the penalty most favorable to the accused is chosen.

CPP Article 528 provides that when necessary, the deliberation is to be suspended and the minutes or audio-visual record of the trial shall be read back or played to the judges in closed session.

So that appears to be all that Italian procedural law, written by the Parliament, provides for the deliberations. There may be additional measures that the ruling body of the courts, the High Council of the Judiciary, has provided.

What may be relevant is that when the CSC annuls a verdict, it doesn't state that the lay judges were incorrect. It is the President of the court bench that is apparently considered the responsible jurist.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th October 2021 at 08:46 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 October 2021, 06:55 AM   #1544
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I have been unable to find details of exactly how the system works in practice. But it does seem as if the five lay judges could vote for guilt and the two professional judges are then left with having to construct a narrative explaining guilt even if they felt the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt under Italian law. ....

It would appear so long as four of the five lay judges vote for guilt the opinions of the professional judges are irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
....

For details of the operation of the Italian Assize court, I only have the limited information available in the Italian Code of Criminal Conduct (CPP).

It is clear from the CPP that the President of the court bench directs the proceedings including the deliberations after the trial is closed. The bench consists of the senior professional judge - who is the President, the second professional judge - who is called the reporting judge or counselor, and the five lay judges.

....
As may be true of other aspects of the Italian judicial system, for example, the role of the CSC judgments as precedent (in practice they appear to be precedents, legally they are only guidance), the roles of the professional judges and the lay judges in the Italian Assize court are not truly clear.

Supposedly all the judges, professional and lay, take oaths to obey the Italian Constitution and Italian law (although I don't have a reference for that). If if 4 or more of the lay judges were to vote for a verdict of guilt, although the evidence was objectively insufficient for such a verdict under CPP Article 533 (which requires that a judge pronounce a conviction if and only if a there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt), what do the professional judges - supposedly knowing that there must be an acquittal or dismissal - do? I suggest they would point this out to the lay judges and ask them to reconsider their votes. But I haven't seen any provision in Italian law that states that the professional judges must do that. It is not clear under Italian law, IIUC, that the professional judges provide guidance to the lay judges in an Assize court trial.

What we have seen in the Knox - Sollecito case are clear examples of the professional judge in charge of the trial - the President of the court bench - making decisions that prejudice the case against the defense.

There is, according to the ECHR, essentially a systematic violation of international law under Italian jurisprudence (the CSC decisions that act as precedence even though they are "only guidance") that allows someone who has been treated as a de facto suspect to be prosecuted for statements she has made in an allegedly coercive interrogation without a lawyer. Under the Italian law written by the Italian Parliament, there is no such exception (CPP Article 63 states that incriminating statements made by a witness, questioned without a lawyer, may not be used).

The Chieffi CSC panel motivation report essentially directed the referral court (the Nencini court) to find a verdict of guilt, and some of the legally questionable statements in the Chieffi CSC MR included "instructions" for the referral court to more sufficiently consider the statements Knox made against Lumumba as evidence against her for the crimes against Kercher than had been done by the Hellmann court. And that is just one example of the legal peculiarities of the Chieffi CSC MR.

I suggest that although the role of the lay judges in the Italian Assize court in causing miscarriages of justice is unclear, it is clear that the professional judges do play a possibly controlling role in such miscarriages, based upon the evidence in the Knox - Sollecito case.
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 October 2021, 09:49 AM   #1545
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
As may be true of other aspects of the Italian judicial system, for example, the role of the CSC judgments as precedent (in practice they appear to be precedents, legally they are only guidance), the roles of the professional judges and the lay judges in the Italian Assize court are not truly clear.

Supposedly all the judges, professional and lay, take oaths to obey the Italian Constitution and Italian law (although I don't have a reference for that). If if 4 or more of the lay judges were to vote for a verdict of guilt, although the evidence was objectively insufficient for such a verdict under CPP Article 533 (which requires that a judge pronounce a conviction if and only if a there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt), what do the professional judges - supposedly knowing that there must be an acquittal or dismissal - do? I suggest they would point this out to the lay judges and ask them to reconsider their votes. But I haven't seen any provision in Italian law that states that the professional judges must do that. It is not clear under Italian law, IIUC, that the professional judges provide guidance to the lay judges in an Assize court trial.

What we have seen in the Knox - Sollecito case are clear examples of the professional judge in charge of the trial - the President of the court bench - making decisions that prejudice the case against the defense.

There is, according to the ECHR, essentially a systematic violation of international law under Italian jurisprudence (the CSC decisions that act as precedence even though they are "only guidance") that allows someone who has been treated as a de facto suspect to be prosecuted for statements she has made in an allegedly coercive interrogation without a lawyer. Under the Italian law written by the Italian Parliament, there is no such exception (CPP Article 63 states that incriminating statements made by a witness, questioned without a lawyer, may not be used).

The Chieffi CSC panel motivation report essentially directed the referral court (the Nencini court) to find a verdict of guilt, and some of the legally questionable statements in the Chieffi CSC MR included "instructions" for the referral court to more sufficiently consider the statements Knox made against Lumumba as evidence against her for the crimes against Kercher than had been done by the Hellmann court. And that is just one example of the legal peculiarities of the Chieffi CSC MR.

I suggest that although the role of the lay judges in the Italian Assize court in causing miscarriages of justice is unclear, it is clear that the professional judges do play a possibly controlling role in such miscarriages, based upon the evidence in the Knox - Sollecito case.
I suggest as a further illustration, beyond the Chieffi CSC panel ruling, the court rulings, made only by professional judge rulings, against compensation for unjust compensation claimed by Sollecito.* The problems in the Italian criminal justice system are clearly attributable to the professional judges.

* See, for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...redith-kercher

Quote:
While the court acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.
....
Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress.
However, the CSC confirmed the ruling by the lower court. That court, according to Italian law, CPP Articles 315 and 646, consists of professional judges only sitting in a Court of Appeal (not as an Assize Court of Appeal, which includes lay judges). CSC panels consist only of professional judges.
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 October 2021, 11:57 AM   #1546
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
....

The Chieffi CSC panel motivation report essentially directed the referral court (the Nencini court) to find a verdict of guilt, and some of the legally questionable statements in the Chieffi CSC MR included "instructions" for the referral court to more sufficiently consider the statements Knox made against Lumumba as evidence against her for the crimes against Kercher than had been done by the Hellmann court. And that is just one example of the legal peculiarities of the Chieffi CSC MR.

I suggest that although the role of the lay judges in the Italian Assize court in causing miscarriages of justice is unclear, it is clear that the professional judges do play a possibly controlling role in such miscarriages, based upon the evidence in the Knox - Sollecito case.
Here's a quote from the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report that demonstrates that the interpretation of Italian law by the CSC in this case with respect to the crime of calunnia was intentionally contradictory in part to the law (CPP Articles 63 and 64) as written by the Italian Parliament:

Quote:
2.2 It is appropriate to begin by noting that, contrary to the claims in the grounds for appeal by the defendant’s lawyers’, it is a principle consistently affirmed by this Court that a report that a crime occurred [notizia di reato] may indeed be derived from the statements of a person subjected to preliminary investigation, even if possibly unusable due to lack of notification under C.P.P. Article 64; and therefore that one may correctly ascribe the crime of calumny to the defendant, on the basis of unusable prosecution evidence, or statements contained in a void interrogation record (Sec. V, 9-30-2010, no. 45016; Sec. IV, 5-12-2009, no. 36861).
The ECHR did not accept that this interpretation of Italian by the professional judges of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation was in accord with international law (the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6.1 with 6.3c) and ECHR case-law. Thus, the ECHR judgment found that Knox's conviction for calunnia was a violation of those Convention Articles.

It's interesting that the CSC decisions cited as jurisprudence by Chieffi were from 2010 and 2009, that is, after the ECHR established in the Salduz v. Turkey case (27 Nov. 2008) that statements made by a suspect (or de facto suspect) in questioning without a lawyer could not be used to obtain a conviction. This suggests that some Italian professional jurists either have been unaware of, or chose to ignore, ECHR judgments, contrary to the Italian Constitution and Italy's solemn treaty obligations.

Source for the Chieffi CSC quote:

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/...-of-calumny-2/

Last edited by Numbers; 20th October 2021 at 12:30 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 October 2021, 12:08 PM   #1547
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
I almost never comment on youtube videos but I've been doing so for the last few days. What I've seen is that the vast majority of people commenting on them about the case...often with great confidence...actually know very little about it. They often have a basic idea but have the facts all screwed up. But, boy, are they certain about their opinions! Even when you present evidence from court records that they are wrong about basic facts (like blood was found on the knife), they become angry and aggressive. For example, one poster insists Knox (they very rarely mention Raffaele) was only acquitted because the police made "a couple of mistakes". When I asked what these couple of mistakes were and why they thought these alleged mistakes were what caused the acquittal, the poster became angry, attacked me, and called me a 'loser'. All because I asked for what he claimed were mistakes. This happens quite a bit. The moment they are asked to back up their claims with evidence and/or given cited evidence they are wrong, they go into attack mode. As they saying goes, "the best defense is a good offense".

Not surprisingly, the worst ones are those who insist Knox is guilty. The amount of hate they spew is disgusting. You really have to wonder why they feel the need to go online and express such nastiness.


Of course, the infamous Les Grossman was right there as he has been for the last almost 15 years putting in his same disgusting 2 cents. He's one troll that needs real psychiatric help as he's a sick man.

I did not agree with the Casey Anthony not guilty verdict but I never felt the need to go online and rant and rave about her being a killer and psychopath, etc. I really think a lot of those that do that kind of thing have some real mental problems. I could understand it if it somehow affected their lives or someone they cared about, but to have this kind of hatred for a complete stranger is just sick.
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 October 2021, 06:19 PM   #1548
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,080
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I almost never comment on youtube videos but I've been doing so for the last few days. What I've seen is that the vast majority of people commenting on them about the case...often with great confidence...actually know very little about it. They often have a basic idea but have the facts all screwed up. But, boy, are they certain about their opinions! Even when you present evidence from court records that they are wrong about basic facts (like blood was found on the knife), they become angry and aggressive. For example, one poster insists Knox (they very rarely mention Raffaele) was only acquitted because the police made "a couple of mistakes". When I asked what these couple of mistakes were and why they thought these alleged mistakes were what caused the acquittal, the poster became angry, attacked me, and called me a 'loser'. All because I asked for what he claimed were mistakes. This happens quite a bit. The moment they are asked to back up their claims with evidence and/or given cited evidence they are wrong, they go into attack mode. As they saying goes, "the best defense is a good offense".
I stopped inquiring as to why people online are the way they are online after the PM's, the ones I mentioned above.

Of the ones I participated in, perhaps only two descended into name calling. (In fairness, both times, it was me who accused the other of starting the name calling, but they posted quotes from me early in the exchange which - upon further review - probably did cross the line in civility. I had not meant to cross the line, but the words quoted back to me could reasonably be interpreted the way they'd interpreted them.) Given the limitations for complex dialogue online, I had to admit that they could reasonably come to that conclusion. I put the whole thing down to the actual limitations of having reasoned dialogue on-line, indeed recent revelations about Facebook substantiate that thought.

I'm not saying that you, StacyHS, have made the same mistake in Youtube. I've not seen the exchanges. I'm just making the point that on-line communication is fraught with this stuff.

Anyway, some years ago an academic from somewhere in England contacted on-line Innocentisi and guilters as part of research into the vitriol that the Perguagian murder created on-line. Some regulars from IIP contacted the academic. Another example is the Wikipedia debacle in 2010 which required personal intervention by Jimbo Wales himself.

I'm not sure anyone came to any conclusions - but that English academic failed to get much cooperation from guilters, whereas Innocentisi were more than happy to talk about their conduct online - good, bad, or indifferent.

The day that the March 2015 Supreme Court decision was to be released, Nicky Wolff from The Guardian was assigned to Seattle to cover local reaction to what would happen that day. Once again, innocentisi talked with him, many on-the-record with their real names.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eattle-verdict

He'd contacted many guilters, none of whom were willing to be open. He'd had a couple of contacts with 'Edward McCall', the pseudo behind the development of the 'Fake Wiki'. That had been the Wiki which had been developed (out of the blue) in the days following one of the more well-known guilters being banned from Wikipedia for vandalizing the main 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' article.

Wolff expressed the opinion that the guilters were worse than 4Chan people.

Maybe there is a study out there about the on-line wars. Maybe Methos can help.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 20th October 2021 at 06:24 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 20th October 2021, 10:18 PM   #1549
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
From Bill's link above:
Quote:
“The nastiness, the vitriol, the ignorant, logic-resistant, fact-averse bile heaped upon a 20-year-old college student was simply stunning,” said Bob Owen, from Long Beach, California. Owen is on the board of the Injustice Anywhere forums, which grew out of the campaign Injustice in Perugia. “For many, it had become simply fun to pop open a comment prompt and let fly with whatever nastiness came to mind. They had come to draw such entertainment value from excoriating Knox that the thought she might be innocent was actually upsetting to them,” he said.

“It was as though the whole world had given itself permission to despise, belittle, denigrate and demean a kid who, quite frankly, reminded me very much of my own college-aged children.”
That pretty much says it all.
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 October 2021, 10:06 AM   #1550
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,080
Knox interviewed for Italian V

Next Tuesday, an Italian language interview with Amanda Knox will be airing in Italy. The interview is with Gaston Zama, for what I gather is 'Le Lene."

I'm extremely limited because of reliance on Google Translate. I gather Knox is going to be asked about another famous Italian criminal case.

Yet what strikes me is the comments on the page where I saw this. Most comments about the "Omicidio di Meredith Kercher" are very fair.

Yet there is still the remnant of guilter vitriol, namely venom spewed at Knox quite apart from any actual evidence which would support such a thing.

Once again, one commenter goes on and on, denigrating Knox for daring to comment on that other case, when "Knox is such a liar".

My oh my. How those early 2007 memes spewed by the original police die hard. "All the lies Knox told" has been covered extensively in these very pages on JREF/ISF.

I compiled such a list, of all those lies. The list was drawn mainly from Harry Reg/The Machine, an anonymous guilter who spent years detailing those lies, and flooding comments sections himself with them.

Boiled down, those "lies" numbered 13. Thirteen lies, that even the nastiest guilter claimed. Of those 13, (I believe it was) 11 lies which Raffaele was supposed to have told. The main "lie" claimed for Knox was her naming of Lumumba at interrogation - and that accusation/conviction now has not survived the ECHR, which has ruled that Italy must repair the wrongful conviction for claiming that Knox had committed calunnia.

That's it. But the "all the lies" meme lives on. At least for some. It will be interesting to see how the Italian interview with Knox on Tuesday plays out.
__________________
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 21st October 2021, 12:39 PM   #1551
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Next Tuesday, an Italian language interview with Amanda Knox will be airing in Italy. The interview is with Gaston Zama, for what I gather is 'Le Lene."

I'm extremely limited because of reliance on Google Translate. I gather Knox is going to be asked about another famous Italian criminal case.

Yet what strikes me is the comments on the page where I saw this. Most comments about the "Omicidio di Meredith Kercher" are very fair.

Yet there is still the remnant of guilter vitriol, namely venom spewed at Knox quite apart from any actual evidence which would support such a thing.

Once again, one commenter goes on and on, denigrating Knox for daring to comment on that other case, when "Knox is such a liar".

My oh my. How those early 2007 memes spewed by the original police die hard. "All the lies Knox told" has been covered extensively in these very pages on JREF/ISF.

I compiled such a list, of all those lies. The list was drawn mainly from Harry Reg/The Machine, an anonymous guilter who spent years detailing those lies, and flooding comments sections himself with them.

Boiled down, those "lies" numbered 13. Thirteen lies, that even the nastiest guilter claimed. Of those 13, (I believe it was) 11 lies which Raffaele was supposed to have told. The main "lie" claimed for Knox was her naming of Lumumba at interrogation - and that accusation/conviction now has not survived the ECHR, which has ruled that Italy must repair the wrongful conviction for claiming that Knox had committed calunnia.

That's it. But the "all the lies" meme lives on. At least for some. It will be interesting to see how the Italian interview with Knox on Tuesday plays out.
So true. I see that "all the lies" quite often. In the comment section I'm reading now, this is mentioned several times. But the most common thing I see if just a simple "She's guilty", "She's a murderer", or a variation of such. Little evidence is never presented of her guilt and, if it is, it's based on debunked myths or prosecution claims. I'm been insulted, called names, and told to 'shut up' when I present proof of their false claims. On the other hand, those who defend Knox tend to be much more focused on the evidence and presenting it and rarely resort to the vileness I see from the PGP posters.

I've mentioned before that I think studies on the psychology of people who feel the need to spew such venom online about people that have not affected their lives personally would be fascinating. I do think there is something "off" about them mentally.
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 October 2021, 06:30 PM   #1552
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,080
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So true. I see that "all the lies" quite often. In the comment section I'm reading now, this is mentioned several times.
I've just reviewed the conversation in this very thread - albeit about 25 continuations ago - that covered "all the lies". In the days following the Hellmann acquittals, guilters had two bases for doubting Hellmann - "all the other evidence" as well as "all the lies".

I'd forgotten that it had been in an early PM with a guilter, that that guilter had clarified what the issue was. That guilter had done some homework, and had put the phrase, "Knox continually lied" - especially at interrogation - into a context I had never though of.

This was during a February 2012 thread here on JREF/ISF where one of the main guilters - an Italian with a pseudo beginning with M. - spoke about "all the lies" that Knox was supposed to have told, thus marking her as deficient in some way. That guilter (M.) refused to list those lies.

Here's the deal. The other guilter I'd had PMs with said that the issue was not "all the lies", it was the continual lying on one issue, and one issue only.

That continual lie, as claimed by that guilter, the sole lie in a list of one, was Knox saying that she'd spent the night at Raffaele's.

In short, this guilter - who had read all of Mignini's stuff, trial transcripts, etc., proved that what on-line guilters regarded as "all the lies" was in fact better phrased as, "continual lies", meaning the continual lie about Knox's claim she'd been at Raffaele's. The thing that made that one a lie was the proof that my PM-friend said placed her at the cottage at the time of the murder.

Which, of course, it didn't.

So in memory of that very good PM-conversation where we did not move each other from our positions, but where we were committed to as much clarity as we could, I appreciate the contact. With a guilter. Even a contact which did not move the needle.
__________________
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 October 2021, 12:16 AM   #1553
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I've just reviewed the conversation in this very thread - albeit about 25 continuations ago - that covered "all the lies". In the days following the Hellmann acquittals, guilters had two bases for doubting Hellmann - "all the other evidence" as well as "all the lies".

I'd forgotten that it had been in an early PM with a guilter, that that guilter had clarified what the issue was. That guilter had done some homework, and had put the phrase, "Knox continually lied" - especially at interrogation - into a context I had never though of.

This was during a February 2012 thread here on JREF/ISF where one of the main guilters - an Italian with a pseudo beginning with M. - spoke about "all the lies" that Knox was supposed to have told, thus marking her as deficient in some way. That guilter (M.) refused to list those lies.

Here's the deal. The other guilter I'd had PMs with said that the issue was not "all the lies", it was the continual lying on one issue, and one issue only.

That continual lie, as claimed by that guilter, the sole lie in a list of one, was Knox saying that she'd spent the night at Raffaele's.

In short, this guilter - who had read all of Mignini's stuff, trial transcripts, etc., proved that what on-line guilters regarded as "all the lies" was in fact better phrased as, "continual lies", meaning the continual lie about Knox's claim she'd been at Raffaele's. The thing that made that one a lie was the proof that my PM-friend said placed her at the cottage at the time of the murder.

Which, of course, it didn't.

So in memory of that very good PM-conversation where we did not move each other from our positions, but where we were committed to as much clarity as we could, I appreciate the contact. With a guilter. Even a contact which did not move the needle.
And yet there is no evidence she was at the cottage at all the night of Nov 1-2. None. Except for one coerced "confession" obtained without legal counsel and that was not recorded. Of course, we have the signed statements that the police wrote up and had her sign which, according to one commenter, is somehow a "record" of the interrogation.
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 October 2021, 10:53 AM   #1554
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And yet there is no evidence she was at the cottage at all the night of Nov 1-2. None. Except for one coerced "confession" obtained without legal counsel and that was not recorded. Of course, we have the signed statements that the police wrote up and had her sign which, according to one commenter, is somehow a "record" of the interrogation.
I've always argued on YouTube that Meredith died as a result of a sequence of actual events that have little to do judicial facts. Even if it is argued in M/B that K&S were present at VDP during the murder they don't provide a narrative and timeline to make sense of it. It doesn't matter if you go for a later or earlier TOD, you still have to postulate Amanda leaving Raffaele's flat at a specific time for a specific purpose resulting in the death of Meredith. You won't be able to do that without resorting to speculation and fantasy. Ah! but what about the scream, they say? Well, if you can't provide a sustainable timeline and narrative to accommodate the scream where does that leave it? The tail doesn't wag the dog, yet the haters think it does.

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 October 2021, 12:25 PM   #1555
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 812
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I've just reviewed the conversation in this very thread - albeit about 25 continuations ago - that covered "all the lies". In the days following the Hellmann acquittals, guilters had two bases for doubting Hellmann - "all the other evidence" as well as "all the lies".

I'd forgotten that it had been in an early PM with a guilter, that that guilter had clarified what the issue was. That guilter had done some homework, and had put the phrase, "Knox continually lied" - especially at interrogation - into a context I had never though of.

This was during a February 2012 thread here on JREF/ISF where one of the main guilters - an Italian with a pseudo beginning with M. - spoke about "all the lies" that Knox was supposed to have told, thus marking her as deficient in some way. That guilter (M.) refused to list those lies.

Here's the deal. The other guilter I'd had PMs with said that the issue was not "all the lies", it was the continual lying on one issue, and one issue only.

That continual lie, as claimed by that guilter, the sole lie in a list of one, was Knox saying that she'd spent the night at Raffaele's.

In short, this guilter - who had read all of Mignini's stuff, trial transcripts, etc., proved that what on-line guilters regarded as "all the lies" was in fact better phrased as, "continual lies", meaning the continual lie about Knox's claim she'd been at Raffaele's. The thing that made that one a lie was the proof that my PM-friend said placed her at the cottage at the time of the murder.

Which, of course, it didn't.

So in memory of that very good PM-conversation where we did not move each other from our positions, but where we were committed to as much clarity as we could, I appreciate the contact. With a guilter. Even a contact which did not move the needle.
I find it odd that the poster M couldn't list the lies told by Amanda considering that Vixen is constantly banging on about Amanda telling numerous lies.

Both Vixen and Harry Rag claimed that Amanda told numerous lies to the police. When questioned by the police in the period prior to the interrogation , the police never claimed Amanda had told them lies. I recall on youtube a an interview with Amanda and she said there was no forensic trace of Amanda in the room. The video claimed this was a lie as there was size 37 footprint in the room but the defence debunked this. As can be seen from my post below, Vixen has falsely accused Amanda of lying on several occasions. If Amanda was such a prolific liar, why do Vixen and other PGP need to lie to sustain this claim? In contrast as can be seen from the list below, you wouldn't need to lie to show Vixen has told lies because there are plenty of geniune instances to draw on and I can list those lies without difficulty. Why can't PGP do the same with Amanda?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post12390810

I feel there is a reason why PGP make vitriolic attacks against Amanda for lying and that is projection. Imagine Mr A and Mr B are athletes. Mr A has to resort to using steroids to perform well but Mr B doesn't. Mr A attacks Mr B for taking steroids to improve his performance. Mr A is projecting his use of steroids on Mr B and to pretend that it is Mr B who has to resort to using steroids to do well rather than Mr A. I feel a similar principle applies when PGP attack Amanda for lying. As can be seen from the list of lies below by Vixen, PGP have to resort to lying and rely on nonsense such as body language because the facts don't support their side and PGP have no case. When Vixen and other PGP tell numerous lies and attack Amanda for doing the same, they are clearly projecting. In addition, they are pretending that rather than PGP having to resort to lying because the facts don't support the case for guilt it is Amanda who has to resort to lying because they facts don't support the case for innocence.



Falsehoods told by Vixen

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13170726

Last edited by Welshman; 22nd October 2021 at 12:50 PM.
Welshman 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 October 2021, 01:37 PM   #1556
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
There's a long article about Amanda Knox by Jessica Bennett, who interviewed her some time after the birth of Knox's baby:

Amanda Knox Was Exonerated. That Doesn’t Mean She’s Free.

Ten years after being cleared of a heinous crime, she is still trying to tell her story on her own terms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/s...ars-later.html
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 22nd October 2021, 02:54 PM   #1557
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 837
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There's a long article about Amanda Knox by Jessica Bennett, who interviewed her some time after the birth of Knox's baby:

Amanda Knox Was Exonerated. That Doesn’t Mean She’s Free.

Ten years after being cleared of a heinous crime, she is still trying to tell her story on her own terms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/s...ars-later.html
Well, I think this part of the article linked to by Numbers is quite interesting...
Quote:
Another idea, for a documentary project, would explore Ms. Knox’s relationship with her principal Italian prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, a lifelong Perugian who during the trial portrayed Ms. Knox as a sex fiend looking to exact revenge on her roommate, and argued that she had to have been involved in the killing, because only a woman would cover a body with a bedsheet.

During her trip back to Italy, in 2019, she delivered a letter to him in Italian, asking if he might be willing to begin a dialogue. It took him a few months to respond, but they have been corresponding since then. She hopes to meet him in person one day, and perhaps film the encounter.

Mr. Mignini, who has since retired and is publishing a book on the case next year, is open to the idea. Reached in Perugia, he said he has gotten to know Ms. Knox’s character in part through the chaplain at her former prison, a man named Don Saulo, with whom she became close, who was also the priest at Mr. Mignini’s childhood parish.

“I am aware that finding herself far from home, at that age, she must certainly have suffered a lot,” Mr. Mignini said. While that perspective does not change his view on the case, he said, he acknowledged that she was portrayed “as a sort of Circe,” he said, referring to the vilified witch from classic mythology, infamous for turning men into pigs.
[...]
Elisabetta Povoledo contributed reporting from Rome.
Just for the record
__________________
"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 October 2021, 03:46 PM   #1558
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,080
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There's a long article about Amanda Knox by Jessica Bennett, who interviewed her some time after the birth of Knox's baby:

Amanda Knox Was Exonerated. That Doesn’t Mean She’s Free.
Most of this article is no one's business, except for the bits directly about the case. Ok ok, me I'm part of the problem, too.

It is good to know that the principals to the wrongful part of the conversation are able to (mostly) control their own narrative. Fight fire with fire, that sort of thing.

But of interest would be Mignini's alleged book. It probably won't be an admission of wrongdoing on his part - best case would be him throwing others under the bus.

But it'll probably be an expanded version of that brief he wrote to defend himself from ridicule from other lawyers. In it he'd not so much defended himself as he relitigated his losing case against Sollecito and Knox.

Then again, the NYTimes piece was worth it just to read the phrase, "just what does a sex-game gone right look like?"

My wish, though, is that tabloids grow a conscience. What are the odds of that? The market for the predatory paparazzi is a vile stain on media.
__________________
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 October 2021, 04:35 PM   #1559
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,629
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Most of this article is no one's business, except for the bits directly about the case. Ok ok, me I'm part of the problem, too.

It is good to know that the principals to the wrongful part of the conversation are able to (mostly) control their own narrative. Fight fire with fire, that sort of thing.

But of interest would be Mignini's alleged book. It probably won't be an admission of wrongdoing on his part - best case would be him throwing others under the bus.

But it'll probably be an expanded version of that brief he wrote to defend himself from ridicule from other lawyers. In it he'd not so much defended himself as he relitigated his losing case against Sollecito and Knox.

Then again, the NYTimes piece was worth it just to read the phrase, "just what does a sex-game gone right look like?"

My wish, though, is that tabloids grow a conscience. What are the odds of that? The market for the predatory paparazzi is a vile stain on media.
I posted the link to it here because it was a) from the NY Times (a non-tabloid), and b) obviously Knox wanted people to see this article, since she sat for an interview.

Knox will also have an interview (in Italian) broadcast on an Italian media outlet on this Tuesday, but I don't have a link at this point.

Note that the article makes some smallish errors on the legal points - for example, confusing together judgments of the ECHR and the Marasca CSC panel.

Last edited by Numbers; 22nd October 2021 at 04:36 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 22nd October 2021, 05:46 PM   #1560
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,416
That's very interesting about Mignini and Knox corresponding. It would be wonderful if, some day, Mignini could admit he was wrong, but I'd bet money he will never do that...even if he comes to secretly admit it to himself.

The troll Les Grossman is very busy as he's been for years now trolling any Knox related site he can find. Right now, he's posting in the same Youtube comment section under three different names: Les Grossman, John Doe, and Mike Hunt. Yes..that last one is just his style: reminiscent of a 12 yr. old boy who conflates crudeness with wit.

He is exactly the person I'd like psychologists to examine in a study of why people feel the need to spew such vitriol online about a complete stranger.
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
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 03:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.