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

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


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

Reply
Old 16th March 2019, 07:22 PM   #3321
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,660
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There's a PGP on another site claiming there was a bleach cleanup in the cottage and that Lumumba fired Knox for coming on to customers! Another one is claiming that Knox only took one course at the U for Foreigners and that it was just a "cover" for her real agenda: drinking and sex. Sometimes I think people should have to pass an IQ test above 100 before being allowed to post.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Years ago, I put a list together of 13 things which guilters claim which even the 2010 Massei report debunks. The claims in your post Stacyhs, made by others, were standard fare 9 years ago **before** the text of the Massei report was released and translated.

Whoever this guilter-nutter is, they're about a decade behind the times.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There are two of them. One is definitely stuck in 2008-2009 and the other, frankly, has a personal vendetta against Knox.
The guilters' "facts" are generally misrepresentations or fabrications, and their arguments are absurdities.

But that must follow from the obvious truth that the original case generated by Mignini and the police - working under Mignini's direction on the case in accordance with Italian law - against Knox and Sollecito was a fabrication or hoax. That is clear from the actual evidence, the alleged evidence, and the procedures used by the police and the provisionally-convicting courts. The ECHR has ruled that Knox's defense rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were violated by the Italian authorities - the police and the courts - during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation and the subsequent trial and conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. The violations found include denial of a lawyer during interrogation, misconduct by the interpreter (an agent of the police), and repeated refusal by the Italian authorities to fulfill their obligation under international law to effectively and independently investigate Knox's credible claim of mistreatment in violation of Article 3 by the police during the interrogation.

Whether or not all the authorities involved in the case realized it was a hoax or not, or whether or not all the few guilters who remain active realize they are continuing to support a hoax is, of course, unknown.

Speculations about the self-awareness of those who deny the reality of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito in the Kercher murder/rape case may parallel, by example, the speculations about the self-awareness of the amateur opera singer Florence Foster-Jenkins, who may or may not have known the true quality of her singing; see, among other sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins

Last edited by Numbers; 16th March 2019 at 07:42 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2019, 07:48 AM   #3322
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,821
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Whether or not all the authorities involved in the case realized it was a hoax or not, or whether or not all the few guilters who remain active realize they are continuing to support a hoax is, of course, unknown.

Speculations about the self-awareness of those who deny the reality of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito in the Kercher murder/rape case may parallel, by example, the speculations about the self-awareness of the amateur opera singer Florence Foster-Jenkins........
What the long history of this thread (plus continuations) on JREF/ISF show is that guilter-nutters substitute repetition for evidence.
__________________
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 17th March 2019, 12:19 PM   #3323
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There's a PGP on another site claiming there was a bleach cleanup in the cottage and that Lumumba fired Knox for coming on to customers! Another one is claiming that Knox only took one course at the U for Foreigners and that it was just a "cover" for her real agenda: drinking and sex. Sometimes I think people should have to pass an IQ test above 100 before being allowed to post.
I agree it would be a good thing if people were given IQ tests before being allowed to join internet forums and participants should have the basic intelligence to understand things. It is annoying when posters come up with ludicrous idea and can’t grasp simple things as Vixen does :-

• Lies on an industrial scale in their posts and attack Amanda for telling numerous lies without realising how hypocritical and strange this behaviour is.

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

• Calls Amanda a psychopath because Amanda supposedly told numerous lies without realising that you are branding yourself a psychopath if you tell numerous lies yourself.

• Talk about the methods used to detect liars without realising the irony of this when lying on an industrial scale yourself.

• Attacks Amanda for telling numerous lies and as the post below shows has to resort to lying to sustain this claim without understanding this destroys the argument Amanda has told numerous lies.

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

• Claiming there is a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele whilst having to resort to lying to argue their case without realising this destroys the notion the prosecution had a slam dunk case.

• Claiming the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case when they had to resort to the tactics below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• Claiming that Amanda and Raffaele felt it necessary to stage a rape of Meredith despite Rudy having raped Meredith which was proved by Rudy’s DNA in Meredith’s vagina.

• Arguing that Amanda would not need to lie if she was innocent whilst having to lie to argue the case for Amanda’s guilt without realising how hypocritical this is.

• Arguing that Amanda and Raffaele committed murder with Guede and Amanda covered up for Guede despite numerous holes in this scenario as detailed below in the post below

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11970178

• Claiming the Italian justice system was bending over backward for Amanda and Raffaele despite the brutal treatment they received under this system as detailed in the post below

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12036493

• Defend’s Curalto’s testimony without realising that Curalto’s testimony provides Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi as he has them away from the cottage and is damaging to the PGP case.

• Can’t understand it is perfectly normal for someone to leave their DNA somewhere they live and that finding someone’s DNA in their home is not incriminating.
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 Yesterday, 05:53 PM   #3324
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,821
Preston's Afterward

I had read Douglas Preston's/Mario Spezi's 2008 "The Monster of Florence" a long time ago. Yet I now have a copy in it with Preston's/Spezi's 2013 Afterward, which is now attached to the book. That Afterward is Preston's/Spezi's account of how Mignini had rolled the Kercher murder and his investigations into Knox/Sollecito into the overall Monster of Florence history.

The Afterward starts with news of the Kercher murder, as well as a call from his friend Niccolo Capponi, betting Preston that Mignini would somehow tie the Perugian murder into the Monster of Florence case. Preston declined the bet.

Preston then lists the influence of psychic and conservative Catholic Gabriella Carlizzi had had on Mignini, she had seemingly anticipated the murder, saying that Hallowe'en was happening and that evil would reign.

I could go on summarizing this Afterward - my mouth dropped at each tidbit that went a long way to explaining how the early investigation had gone so wrong so quickly - because of Mignini's bizarre theories.

Yet it was when Preston discussed the on-line hate campaign, and the way the online hate sites stirred the pot that he covered one last item - the way the tabloid press had escalated the bizarre theories into a tabloid hate-industry.

Enter Preston's mention of Barbie Nadeau. When the police had seized Knox's prison diary, and then had leaked it to the press, a fairly straightforward entry where Knox had been struggling (in writing) with what Raffaele's possible role in this could have been - and what Raffaele would have had to have done to frame her (Knox)...... she ended her speculation with, "I just highly doubt all of that," meaning that in working it out, she couldn't see how it could have been possible for Raffaele to have framed her.

The Italian translation of this which had appeared in the press, rendered, "I just highly doubt all of that," as, "I don't understand why Raffaele would do that," which made it appear Knox had entertained doubts about him - which her English words made clear she did not.

Barbie Nadeau? In reporting back to the USA, she simply took the Italian version of that diary entry, translated it back into English and passed it on to The Daily Beast without checking with the English original. The Daily Beast had some of the most guilt-friendly pieces in the USA media, and never ran a retraction.

I remember years ago this snippet from the prison diary had come up - the Italian version translated back into English - which a guilter-nutter had used to prove that Knox had been trying to throw Sollecito under the bus. This nutter had claimed that Nadeau had been a journalist of highest ethics and beyond reproach.

Then someone posted the original English version. Guilter-nutters pointed to that posting (of actual evidence) as part of the PR conspiracy to manage Knox's reputation. The guilter-nutters did everything except bow to the inevitable; that the original was prior and disproved what they'd been advancing.

Anyway, it was amazing to read Preston's 16 pages on the case. I'd recommend it, especially given all he'd gone through with Mignini himself.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; Yesterday at 06:32 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 Yesterday, 06:51 PM   #3325
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,867
Bill, that is very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

I'm dealing with someone elsewhere who has recently stated that Lumumba may have changed his story of being abused during his interrogation to being treated well because the Knox PR had stopped paying him.
In response to my saying that I suspected Guede refused to testify because he didn't want to be cross examined by the defense, this same person said that would be the Knox PR/legal people. How do you respond to such stupid statements other than to say they're stupid?
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 Yesterday, 07:38 PM   #3326
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,321
Gentlemen, start your engine

John Henry Wigmore said that cross examination was, "beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth," No wonder Guede would not want to be cross-examined.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides 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 Today, 12:22 AM   #3327
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,867
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
John Henry Wigmore said that cross examination was, "beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth," No wonder Guede would not want to be cross-examined.
I think the Massei trial would have gone far differently had Guede been cross examined by the defense.
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 Today, 02:59 PM   #3328
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,458
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think the Massei trial would have gone far differently had Guede been cross examined by the defense.
Could Guede have been required to testify? Does Italy have anything like the Fifth Amendment?
Bob001 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 Today, 03:36 PM   #3329
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,821
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Could Guede have been required to testify? Does Italy have anything like the Fifth Amendment?
Guede opted for a fast track trial, in essence both sides stipulated to a common corpus of evidence in exchange for an abbreviated trial. No defendant in Italy is required to testify, indeed defendants aren't even sworn when they do - the implication meaning that the system expects them to lie, as they are free from the laws of perjury.

Note here:

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/de...ceedings-51030

In this, please note it lists these as rights for someone accused of a crime in Italy:
- right to have exculpatory evidence turned over to the defence
- right to gather exculpatory evidence
- right to a lawyer present during a body search
- mandatory right to having a lawyer during interrogation
- right to be informed of charges/evidence
- foreigners have the right to translation/interpretation of documents
- not required to attend trial, except when being I.D.ed by a witness
- right to make voluntary statements at any time during trial
- right to silence at any stage of procedure, including trial
__________________
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 Today, 04:31 PM   #3330
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,660
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think the Massei trial would have gone far differently had Guede been cross examined by the defense.
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Could Guede have been required to testify? Does Italy have anything like the Fifth Amendment?
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Guede opted for a fast track trial, in essence both sides stipulated to a common corpus of evidence in exchange for an abbreviated trial. No defendant in Italy is required to testify, indeed defendants aren't even sworn when they do - the implication meaning that the system expects them to lie, as they are free from the laws of perjury.

Note here:

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/de...ceedings-51030

In this, please note it lists these as rights for someone accused of a crime in Italy:
- right to have exculpatory evidence turned over to the defence
- right to gather exculpatory evidence
- right to a lawyer present during a body search
- mandatory right to having a lawyer during interrogation
- right to be informed of charges/evidence
- foreigners have the right to translation/interpretation of documents
- not required to attend trial, except when being I.D.ed by a witness
- right to make voluntary statements at any time during trial
- right to silence at any stage of procedure, including trial
As pointed out by Bill, Guede legally could not be compelled to undergo cross-examination.

On the other hand, as stated in the Italian Constitution, Article 111:

"The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel."

The prosecution was allowed by the Nencini appeal court to introduce evidence against Knox and Sollecito from Guede's fast-track trial using CPP Article 238-bis as the alleged legal justification. Knox and Sollecito did not have legal representation and there was no right for them to cross-examine or challenge the evidence presented at Guede's fast-track trial. The Marasca CSC panel disallowed the use of this evidence because it was a violation of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution and CPP Article 536.1-bis. Also, under CPP Article 197-bis.4, Guede legally could not be obliged to testify against Knox and Sollecito or to any facts related to the offense of which he and they were jointly accused, because even though Guede was finally convicted of the murder/rape of Kercher, he denied that he had committed that crime during this trial and afterwards.

From pages 29-30 of the translation of the Marasca CSC panel MR linked from
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/:

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

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

And even in this {Nencini court} trial process, Guede - called to testify as a witness as a result of the accusatory statements of Mario Alessi (a man convicted of a horrendous murder of a child) - after having denied the accusation, confirmed the contents of a letter he sent to his lawyer, and then unexpectedly turned to a news broadcast, in which he accused today's applicants, and then refused cross-examination by their lawyers. Thus after recognising the authenticity of his letter refuting Alessi’s claim that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox had nothing to do with the murder, Guede refused to be cross-examined by the defendants' lawyers, assuming that his presence in the trial was limited to the content of the statements of Alessi concerning himself. Hence, the unusability stated – in the part related to the letter that however concerned today’s appellants – cannot be used in a different procedural context, given that it was made without the prescribed guarantees.

On the other hand, confronting the definitive attitude of closure the (appeal) court did not force the Ivorian to testify, as a result of the irrevocability of the judgment obtained against him, pursuant on Article 197 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

And in fact, bearing in mind the successive Article 197 bis, section 4, of the same legal code, he {Guede} could not be compelled to give evidence about facts for which he had already been condemned, but always denied his responsibility, and could not give evidence involving his responsibility in relation to the offence in the present trial, since it was made outside such prescribed guarantees."
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 Today, 06:35 PM   #3331
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,046
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
John Henry Wigmore said that cross examination was, "beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth," No wonder Guede would not want to be cross-examined.
Haha! Nor did Raff.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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 Today, 08:08 PM   #3332
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,458
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
As pointed out by Bill, Guede legally could not be compelled to undergo cross-examination.

On the other hand, as stated in the Italian Constitution, Article 111:

"The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel."

What I meant was could Guede -- after his own fast-track conviction -- have been required to testify as a witness at the Knox/Sollecito trials, and as a witness, not a defendant, could their lawyers have cross-examined him? Presumably with his case resolved, nothing he said could have made his situation worse.

Last edited by Bob001; Today at 08:10 PM.
Bob001 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 Today, 09:41 PM   #3333
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,867
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Haha! Nor did Raff.
The one big glaring elephant in the room is that there was zero evidence placing Raff in Meredith's bedroom where she was murdered while the same could not be said of Guede.
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 10:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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