IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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

Closed Thread
Old 16th June 2021, 05:59 PM   #681
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post

"Sometimes forensic scientists may try to find meaning in the absence of a DNA profile, to prove a negative: e.g., "Mr X was not in the room because I could not find his DNA." This is a specious argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

(page 4)
The point missing here is that in a criminal case, one must prove positively, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an accused committed the act of the crime in order to convict that accused of that crime (Italian law, CPP Article 533).

One can always speculate that anyone (say Mr. X) was in a room and left no traces. But in a criminal case, one must, according to law, be able to say without a reasonable doubt that there is credible evidence that Mr. X committed the crime in order to convict X, according to Italian law (CPP Article 533). When there is a sexual assault and bloody murder by knife in a relatively small room with DNA of Mr. Y in the victim and on her clothes, and Y's DNA in blood in that room, then one cannot use the argument that absence of evidence of X's DNA in the room or in the victim is somehow not evidence of absence and innocence, when there is no credible evidence of the presence of X in that murder room or in relation to the victim.

Last edited by Numbers; 16th June 2021 at 06:03 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 Back to Top
Old 16th June 2021, 06:07 PM   #682
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Quote:
I also found a blog by a woman pseudo'ed KrissyG which wrote copiously about it all as well. Her experts were not Dr. Peter Gill....

.... They were "Dr. Naseer Ahmad" and a mysterious pseudo called "The Machine". These 'experts' were not named until the bottom of a very long DNA screed on one of the blog pages, leaving the reader unaware of who she was taking her DNA information from.

I am unaware of Naseer Ahmad holding a Ph.D. or a medical degree. He has never even tried to hide that he's an astrologer and a wholistic healer.
Ah, yes...Naseer Ahmad* aka "Man for Atlan" who literally believes he is a god. He has no medical degree but he "studied homeopathy" and "took courses in alternative medicine". He also was promoting his "wholistic healing" to cure autism after claiming he healed his autistic son in two years (age 4-6) using diet, vitamins, and placing his hands on his son's head every night to send energy there.

*Not to be confused with this Dr. Naseer Ahmad or this Dr. N. Ahmad. or this Dr. Naseer Ahmad
No, we're talking about this Naseer Ahmad who is listed as a reference in this book:
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 Back to Top
Old 17th June 2021, 04:17 PM   #683
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
As usual, someone did the habitual disappearing act before answering my question.
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 Back to Top
Old 17th June 2021, 10:43 PM   #684
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL. Going with that excuse again, I see. How DNA analysis works does not change because one is in the witness box. The fact that the scientific world agrees with Gill and not Stefanoni's ridiculous knife analysis is testament to that fact. Also as Bill W pointed out, Gill's paper was peer reviewed. Can you provide a DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's analysis? Nope.



I take it then that you will no longer be quoting Balding or Garofano as experts since neither testified in court or were cross-examined? Great.



Neither did Rinaldi examine the bath mat with the bloody footprint first hand. I take you'll no longer be presenting Rinaldi's findings as evidence of that footprint belong to Sollecito? On the other hand, Vinci did examine it first hand.

If I am an 'armchair expert' then exactly what disqualifies you from that title? Your professional scientific training in DNA analysis?
At least I know that one does not have to be the person who ran a DNA test to be able to interpret the results of those tests. Or are you now saying that Balding, whom you often quote, is now irrelevant too? Balding used the exact same sources as Gill to form his professional opinion.




You love to quote that one cherry-picked statement of Gill but ignore his conclusion about the bra clasp:



Since there were other male profiles found on the clasp and you claim transfer is highly unlikely, then you must believe that all those other males touched MK's bra clasp themselves.

We know how the transfer could have occurred because the police video itself shows us, doesn't it? It is also quite possible that the contamination didn't occur in MK's room at all, but in the lab. This is not uncommon and has been demonstrated in several, some infamous, cases. Of course, Stefanoni claimed there has never been such an occurrence in her lab...which was not even certified.

By the way, tertiary transfer has been proved in scientific studies which have been previously presented to you. But you just ignore them because they don't support your agenda.

Rinaldi and Boemia were /are forensic experts who were called to testify and present their findings as expert witnesses.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 17th June 2021, 10:45 PM   #685
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
The fact is that Gill pretty much endorses 8.1. In his PDF on the case Gill refers to the distribution of the DNA as being the key consideration:

"The key consideration was the distribution of DNA profiles of Guede vs Knox and Sollecito. Multiple profiles from multiple evidential items are much less likely to all be contamination incidents, whereas weak (one-off) results are more likely to be contaminants—this was always a recognized difficulty for the prosecution who invented the selective cleaning hypothesis to explain away inconvenient results."

There were multiple instances of Rudy's DNA, footprints, and hand-print at the crime scene while the only alleged evidence of Raffaele on the bra-clasp. You would have to reasonably ask yourself what was it about this hook on a bra-clasp that was so interesting and intriguing not only to Raffaele but another 2 or more male contributors that also left no other traces at the crime scene. Who were the other inter-dimensional assailants?

Peter Gill was a member of the team who pioneered DNA profiling in the 1980's. His opinion is second to none.

Hoots
Gill could be the King of Spain but he did not have anything to do with this case, did not testify, did not examine evidence was not cross-examined.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 17th June 2021, 11:18 PM   #686
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Rinaldi and Boemia were /are forensic experts who were called to testify and present their findings as expert witnesses.
But theydid not examine the bath rug itself.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Likewise, Peter Gill was not called to the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined and therefore his theories count for exactly zilch.

He did not examine first hand the forensics, he was not part of the case.


Vinci was also called to testify and present his findings as an expert witness. And he did examine the rug itself. And used an advanced forensic tool in the process with neither Rinaldi nor Boemia used. You can't have it both ways, Vix, no matter how you try. And you do try.
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 Back to Top
Old 17th June 2021, 11:32 PM   #687
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But theydid not examine the bath rug itself.





Vinci was also called to testify and present his findings as an expert witness. And he did examine the rug itself. And used an advanced forensic tool in the process with neither Rinaldi nor Boemia used. You can't have it both ways, Vix, no matter how you try. And you do try.
Your method of debate using semantic quibbles and 'whatabout..?' doesn't negate the fact Gill had nothing whatsoever to do with the trial. Rinaldi and Boemia were employed by the scientific police and no amount of 'what about this that and the other' changes that fact.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 17th June 2021, 11:44 PM   #688
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Gill could be the King of Spain but he did not have anything to do with this case, did not testify, did not examine evidence was not cross-examined.
But he is not the King of Spain: he is one of the foremost DNA experts in the world while Stefanoni is a mere BA small town police forensic analyst who, in the US or the UK, would not even qualify to use the title of "Doctor".

Despite your claim that he did 'not examine the evidence', he did examine the exact same analysis results that Stefanoni performed and used to base her opinion on.

Quote:
Professor Peter Gill, a lecturer of Forensic Genetics at Oslo University, Norway, looked in-depth at the DNA results from the crime scene using the original analysis by the Italian Police Scientific Department and also a second independent analysis ordered by the judge in the first appeal.
Going back to your claim that tertiary transfer doesn't happen:

Quote:
And another thing to remember, with low template DNA, we are detecting an incredibly low number of cells, and the issue with that is that secondary transfer can occur, that means, if I touch a table, I leave my DNA on there and that will stay indefinitely unless someone cleans it off. But, because it's there, someone could touch that DNA and then touch another surface and transport my DNA to another surface.


'This is one of the issues with the bra clasp, whether the DNA was transported by primary contact, which means it was touched by the defendant, or whether it was accidentally transferred from an investigator wearing plastic gloves. Plastic gloves are a very good way of transporting DNA from one area to another, so it's absolutely essential to change gloves when handling evidence and I found this wasn't done in this particular case. It was of serious concern.'

“It's known that Sollecito had used the door handle to get into the apartment. But, if investigators had touched the door handle, then the bra clasp, they'd be transferring his DNA, unless you were very, very careful.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gainst-Amanda-

Try again, Vix. Nah...on second thought, don't bother. You'd still be wrong.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 12:07 AM   #689
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But he is not the King of Spain: he is one of the foremost DNA experts in the world while Stefanoni is a mere BA small town police forensic analyst who, in the US or the UK, would not even qualify to use the title of "Doctor".

Despite your claim that he did 'not examine the evidence', he did examine the exact same analysis results that Stefanoni performed and used to base her opinion on.



Going back to your claim that tertiary transfer doesn't happen:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gainst-Amanda-

Try again, Vix. Nah...on second thought, don't bother. You'd still be wrong.
Stefanoni was an employee of the Scientific Police and it was in that capacity she presented her forensic scientific evidence, which proves Knox', Guede's and Sollecito's clear involvement in the murder.

Gill is just a member of the pro-innocence brigade who sought to influence the courts by misusing his credentials to conspire with the dishonest Vecchiotti and Conti, who have a track record of trying to get guilty parties off. Fancy feeling sorry for a murderer.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 12:19 AM   #690
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your method of debate using semantic quibbles and 'whatabout..?' doesn't negate the fact Gill had nothing whatsoever to do with the trial.
I see. When you claim one thing and then contradict yourself and you're called on it, it's a "semantic quibbles and 'whatabout..?'



Quote:
Rinaldi and Boemia were employed by the scientific police and no amount of 'what about this that and the other' changes that fact.
So? Working for the Scientific police does not make them right or infallible. Stefanoni proved that as did Boemia. He was the 'expert' who identified a partial print of Guede's trainer as a "woman's shoe size 37. That was roundly debunked by Vinci who correctly identified it when he used Crimescope. This tool allowed Vinci to overlay the "woman's shoe print" with Guede's Nike showing they were the same shoe.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 12:34 AM   #691
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stefanoni was an employee of the Scientific Police and it was in that capacity she presented her forensic scientific evidence, which proves Knox', Guede's and Sollecito's clear involvement in the murder.
Who gives a flying F if Stefanoni was an employee of the SP? You keep using employment by the SP as if it's something that makes them magically incapable of being wrong. Stefanoni failed to report that the luminol revealed footprints in the hall were tested with TMB and the results were negative. She implied that they were made in blood when she knew damn well they tested negative. She also 'discovered' MK's DNA on the kitchen knife in a groove she was never able to find again...nor was anyone else able to find it. A knife that had to have been soaked in bleach in order to remove all blood and which would have certainly destroyed any DNA. She failed to follow basic anti-contamination protocols in the collection of evidence. She hasn't got 1/100th of the forensic knowledge, forensic education or forensic experience of Prof. Gill.

Quote:
Gill is just a member of the pro-innocence brigade who sought to influence the courts by misusing his credentials to conspire with the dishonest Vecchiotti and Conti, who have a track record of trying to get guilty parties off.
Resorting to personal attacks like this against Gill and C&V just exposes how weak your argument really is .

Quote:
Fancy feeling sorry for a murderer.
No one feels sorry for Guede. But fancy continuing to call two people murderers when they've been definitively acquitted. And that's a judicial fact. You know, those things you set such store by.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 12:39 AM   #692
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
You still haven't answered my question:

Did or did not Sollecito declare his innocence at his trials?


You will never be able to explain, as asked, how neither RS nor AK could participate in a violent, hands on struggle in that small room and leave no evidence of themselves behind. No DNA, no fingerprints, no shoe/footprints in MK's blood, etc. But Guede couldn't. You never attempt to explain it because you know you can't.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 03:29 AM   #693
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You still haven't answered my question:

Did or did not Sollecito declare his innocence at his trials?


You will never be able to explain, as asked, how neither RS nor AK could participate in a violent, hands on struggle in that small room and leave no evidence of themselves behind. No DNA, no fingerprints, no shoe/footprints in MK's blood, etc. But Guede couldn't. You never attempt to explain it because you know you can't.
I never answer a silly question.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 03:33 AM   #694
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
horse apples
fool's gold
Rocky Mountain oysters
horned toad
Matura diamond
shooting star
Texas tea
virtual reality
judicial facts

Your birth certificate
Your marriage certificate
Your land deeds
Your last will and testimony
Your citizenship
Your passport
Your driving licence
Your identity
= Judicial facts
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 06:35 AM   #695
TomG
Muse
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your birth certificate
Your marriage certificate
Your land deeds
Your last will and testimony
Your citizenship
Your passport
Your driving licence
Your identity
= Judicial facts
These are not absurdities though are they? It's the judicial facts of multiple attackers, the staged break-in and that Rudy was only an accomplice that are judicial facts AND absurdities that don't resolve the case.

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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 08:32 AM   #696
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
These are not absurdities though are they? It's the judicial facts of multiple attackers, the staged break-in and that Rudy was only an accomplice that are judicial facts AND absurdities that don't resolve the case.

Hoots
There is a broader question of the function of the judicial system.

The guilters apparently believe that the function of the judicial system is to generate "judicial truths" which are in agreement with the preconceived notions or agenda of the guilters

However, not everyone agrees with the concept that judicial truths are only acceptable when they agree with one's prejudices.

A different view is described in the Marasca CSC panel Motivation Report, Section 2.1, beginning on page 21 of the translation.

Quote:
...[T]he criminal [judicial system] process is, constitutionally, extended towards ascertaining the material truth {the real truth, not merely the judicial truth}, as well as towards a cognitive progression, which, corrected for errores in procedendo [errors in the procedure]] and in iudicando, medio tempore [errors in judgment, in the meantime] intervening, reaches its ultimate end, in terms of approximating,as closely as possible, that objective, rendering to society a result commonly understood as "procedural truth",that is to say, truth procedurally ascertained (rectius [to be precise], that which is possible to ascertain with the ordinary tools of cognition and inference at the judges' disposal).

And when, as in this case, one is dealing with a legal process based exclusively on circumstantial evidence–in the absence of direct evidence, of reliable technical-scientific inputs, or of relevant and usable declarative contributions –all the more the procedural truth, unanchored from material and phenomenal reality, ends by being a mere fictio iuris [legal fiction], owing to the tools of human cognition commonly employed in the process of reconstruction and revision a posteriori being limited and usually subject to opinion. Therefore, it is exactly in situations of this kind that respect for the forms is all the more necessary, representing the unfailing criterion –objective and preferential –that is the testing for correctness and for congruity of {the} cognitive route of a judge in a problem atic approach to material truth. {That is, the judge must obey the procedural law and the scientific knowledge of neutral experts and not produce an arbitrary judgment; the arbitrary judgment or fictional "judicial truth" is the result of opinions derived from "a posteriori" errors in reasoning*.}
* That is, beginning with the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito had committed the crimes against Kercher, and then working backwards to select or manufacture evidence seeming to support that conclusion. An example: The Nencini report claimed that apparent footprints, associated with Knox's DNA, but without Kercher's DNA, which were visible by luminol, but not containing blood based on TMB testing (according to the Scientific Police), must have been made from Kercher's blood - because they were found in a flat where Kercher's blood stains had been found in another room. The errors include, but are not limited to, Nencini's failure to acknowledge the highly likely possibility that luminol hits were a result of the well-known reactivity of luminol with many non-blood substances.

Source: http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...ons-report.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2021 at 09:09 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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 10:33 AM   #697
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I never answer a silly question.
You never answer a question where you have to admit you are wrong. You never answer a question that you can't without admitting it's evidence of RS's and AK's innocence. That covers both my questions to you.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 10:39 AM   #698
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your birth certificate
Your marriage certificate
Your land deeds
Your last will and testimony
Your citizenship
Your passport
Your driving licence
Your identity
RS and AK acquitted for not having committed the deed.
A man cannot rape a woman who was wearing tight jeans.
It’s a crime to tell a man ‘you have no balls’.
Repeatedly winking at someone is sexual harassment.
Father must carry on paying child support for 41-year-old daughter.
= Judicial facts
FTFY. You forgot a few.
https://www.thelocal.it/20160418/ten...court-rulings/

Last edited by Stacyhs; 18th June 2021 at 10:48 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 10:50 AM   #699
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There is a broader question of the function of the judicial system.

The guilters apparently believe that the function of the judicial system is to generate "judicial truths" which are in agreement with the preconceived notions or agenda of the guilters

However, not everyone agrees with the concept that judicial truths are only acceptable when they agree with one's prejudices.

A different view is described in the Marasca CSC panel Motivation Report, Section 2.1, beginning on page 21 of the translation.



* That is, beginning with the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito had committed the crimes against Kercher, and then working backwards to select or manufacture evidence seeming to support that conclusion. An example: The Nencini report claimed that apparent footprints, associated with Knox's DNA, but without Kercher's DNA, which were visible by luminol, but not containing blood based on TMB testing (according to the Scientific Police), must have been made from Kercher's blood - because they were found in a flat where Kercher's blood stains had been found in another room. The errors include, but are not limited to, Nencini's failure to acknowledge the highly likely possibility that luminol hits were a result of the well-known reactivity of luminol with many non-blood substances.

Source: http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...ons-report.pdf
Also, a conviction or other judgment against a person (such as a denial of a pension, insurance settlement, or other lawfully deserved benefit) that is based upon judicial reasoning that is arbitrary, contradictory, ignores relevant defense arguments, does not adequately evaluate reliability of evidence, or is otherwise materially insufficient may be, depending on the ECHR's evaluation of the details of the case, a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights under Article 6 and other relevant articles.

Relevant case-law includes:

HIRVISAARI v. FINLAND 49684/99 27/09/2001 Paragraphs 30 - 33

MIROVNI INŠTITUT v. SLOVENIA 32303/13 13/03/2018 Para. 43 - 45

Gradinar v. Moldova 7170/02 08/04/2008 Para. 112 - 117

Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine 42310/04 21/04/2011 Para. 280

Vyerentsov v. Ukraine 20372/11 11/04/2013 Para. 84 -89

Donadze v. Georgia 74644/01 07/03/2006 (In French)
From the press release on this case:

Quote:
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial.

The Court noted that none of the courts dealing with the applicant’s case had taken into account the applicant’s arguments and that their main reasons for dismissing his claim had been based on facts which he had neither complained of nor contested in his appeal, and therefore had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the dispute.

It did not appear that the Georgian courts had conducted a thorough, serious examination of the applicant’s arguments, that they had based their reasoning on the evidence he had adduced or that they had given valid reasons for dismissing his claim. Even though courts were not required to explain the reasons for dismissing each and every argument a party might raise, they were not absolved from the obligation to give due consideration to and reply to a party’s main submissions. The shortcomings noted, and the failure of the Court of Appeal to examine the applicant’s statement of the grounds of appeal, had placed the applicant at a clear disadvantage in relation to the respondent.

The Court therefore concluded that Mr Donadze had not had an effective hearing by the Georgian courts, which had not protected his right to a fair trial. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Moreover, the Court did not deny that the judges’ negligent observations and the disturbing casualness of the judges of fact could well have undermined the applicant’s confidence in the proper administration of justice. However, in view of the finding of a violation which it had just reached, it considered that it was not necessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2021 at 11:06 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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 12:10 PM   #700
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,774
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your birth certificate
Your marriage certificate
Your land deeds
Your last will and testimony
Your citizenship
Your passport
Your driving licence
Your identity
= Judicial facts

All things that can be changed by further personal action or government adjudication. Marriages can be dissolved. Land can be sold. Citizenship can be renounced. Driving licenses can be revoked. I can't be un-born, but my birth certificate could be found to be in error and then altered.

So, not facts at all, just as "fool's" gold isn't gold. Merely "judicial" facts. Temporary declarations subject to change.
__________________
A zřmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 12:35 PM   #701
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,475
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
All things that can be changed by further personal action or government adjudication. Marriages can be dissolved. Land can be sold. Citizenship can be renounced. Driving licenses can be revoked. I can't be un-born, but my birth certificate could be found to be in error and then altered.

So, not facts at all, just as "fool's" gold isn't gold. Merely "judicial" facts. Temporary declarations subject to change.
Our family had a death certificate for a relative, which listed both the wrong gender as well as wrong date of birth. They got the date and place of death correct.

According to Vixen, the "judicial fact" contained on the certificate was the final word. We should just suck it up and not try to alter the "fact" of it.

No thanks.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 12:37 PM   #702
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
All things that can be changed by further personal action or government adjudication. Marriages can be dissolved. Land can be sold. Citizenship can be renounced. Driving licenses can be revoked. I can't be un-born, but my birth certificate could be found to be in error and then altered.

So, not facts at all, just as "fool's" gold isn't gold. Merely "judicial" facts. Temporary declarations subject to change.
Excellent points. The need for some PGP posters to rely so heavily on "judicial facts" arises from the lack of "actual facts" supporting the guilt of the pair.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 01:45 PM   #703
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,091
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Also, a conviction or other judgment against a person (such as a denial of a pension, insurance settlement, or other lawfully deserved benefit) that is based upon judicial reasoning that is arbitrary, contradictory, ignores relevant defense arguments, does not adequately evaluate reliability of evidence, or is otherwise materially insufficient may be, depending on the ECHR's evaluation of the details of the case, a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights under Article 6 and other relevant articles.

Relevant case-law includes:

HIRVISAARI v. FINLAND 49684/99 27/09/2001 Paragraphs 30 - 33

MIROVNI INŠTITUT v. SLOVENIA 32303/13 13/03/2018 Para. 43 - 45

Gradinar v. Moldova 7170/02 08/04/2008 Para. 112 - 117

Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine 42310/04 21/04/2011 Para. 280

Vyerentsov v. Ukraine 20372/11 11/04/2013 Para. 84 -89

Donadze v. Georgia 74644/01 07/03/2006 (In French)
From the press release on this case:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Excellent points. The need for some PGP posters to rely so heavily on "judicial facts" arises from the lack of "actual facts" supporting the guilt of the pair.
Here's an example, from Gradinar v. Moldova, of the ECHR view of "judical facts" that are based on fabrications or procedural irregularities:

Quote:
109. In the present case, although G. {Gradinar} died before the re-examination of the case against him, he was found guilty of the crime with which he had been charged. The Court has serious reservations in respect of a legal system allowing the trial and conviction of deceased persons, given the obvious inability of such persons to defend themselves. However, the very special circumstances of the case include a request by the applicant, as the deceased person’s relative and legal representative, to continue the proceedings in order to prove his innocence. In view of this request and of its findings below, the Court does not consider it necessary to decide whether G.’s conviction after his death constituted in itself a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in the present case.

110. The Court notes that in her submissions the applicant {Gradinar's widow} relied on the findings of the Chişinău Regional Court as confirming the alleged breaches of domestic procedural law during the criminal investigation. Accordingly, it will examine whether the proceedings as a whole, including the manner in which the higher courts addressed specific findings of the lower court, were in compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

111. The Court notes that a number of findings of the Chişinău Regional Court were not contradicted by the findings of the higher courts and that, accordingly, they must be considered as established facts (see Bimer S.A. v. Moldova, no. 15084/03, §§ 57-59, 10 July 2007). These included the fact that G. and the other accused were arrested and detained on the basis of a fabricated administrative offence, during which period of detention they were questioned and made self-incriminating statements in the absence of any procedural safeguards (see paragraphs 18-22 above). There was no response to the finding that G. had unlawfully been shown the video recording of D.C.’s statement at the crime scene (see paragraph 28 above) in order to obtain consistent statements by all the accused.

112. The Court further notes that the higher courts did not deal with the finding of the lower court that G. and the other co-accused had an alibi for the presumed time of the crime (see paragraphs 41-42 above), and that a number of serious procedural violations made unreliable most of the expert reports (see paragraphs 56-57 above).

113. The higher courts also relied on the many witness statements in G.’s case. However, the Court observes that no comment was made on the finding by the lower court that some of those statements were fabricated by the police (see paragraphs 31 and 41 above).

114. The Court concludes that while accepting as “decisive evidence” (see paragraph 75 above) the self-incriminating statements made by the accused, the domestic courts chose simply to remain silent with regard to a number of serious violations of the law noted by the lower court and to certain fundamental issues, such as the fact that the accused had an alibi for the presumed time of the murder. The Court could not find any explanation for such omission in the courts’ decisions and neither did the Government provide any clarification in this respect.

115. In the light of the above observations and taking into account the proceedings as a whole, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for convicting G. and thus did not satisfy the requirements of fairness as required by Article 6 of the Convention.

116. The Court recalls its finding that the proceedings against G. concerned directly the applicant’s own rights (see paragraph 101 above). It concludes that G.’s conviction, in the absence of sufficient reasons, necessarily breached the applicant’s right to a fair trial.

117. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th June 2021, 03:10 PM   #704
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Another "judicial fact" is that Knox washed her hands of blood in the sink leaving epithelial cells mixed with Kercher's blood.

Quote:
And it is probable - not
necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to
remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of
cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely
probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing
, yet not a necessary
one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in
the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the
washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.
(Massei MR)

This is scientifically unfounded since DNA is all the same regardless of the source.

Quote:
Further, a person's DNA is the same in every cell. For example, the DNA in a man's blood is the same as the DNA in his skin cells, semen, and saliva.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/DNAbro/what.html

Saliva DNA left in the sink is the same DNA from epithelial cells. They are indistinguishable. It is highly probable that the mixed sample resulted from AK's saliva being wiped up with the blood during collection. The video of this collection shows a wide area of the sink being wiped and two different areas with the same collection swab. Unless that sink was just thoroughly cleaned with bleach prior to the murder, there was absolutely pre-existing DNA in it. I could go to almost any sink and get a mixed sample of DNA if more than one person uses that sink. And whether the source(s) of that DNA was saliva or skin cells or both could not be determined.

Video of sink sample collection at the pertinent spot:

https://youtu.be/APLa0lBfTLo?t=97
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 02:28 AM   #705
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There is a broader question of the function of the judicial system.

The guilters apparently believe that the function of the judicial system is to generate "judicial truths" which are in agreement with the preconceived notions or agenda of the guilters

However, not everyone agrees with the concept that judicial truths are only acceptable when they agree with one's prejudices.

A different view is described in the Marasca CSC panel Motivation Report, Section 2.1, beginning on page 21 of the translation.



* That is, beginning with the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito had committed the crimes against Kercher, and then working backwards to select or manufacture evidence seeming to support that conclusion. An example: The Nencini report claimed that apparent footprints, associated with Knox's DNA, but without Kercher's DNA, which were visible by luminol, but not containing blood based on TMB testing (according to the Scientific Police), must have been made from Kercher's blood - because they were found in a flat where Kercher's blood stains had been found in another room. The errors include, but are not limited to, Nencini's failure to acknowledge the highly likely possibility that luminol hits were a result of the well-known reactivity of luminol with many non-blood substances.

Source: http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...ons-report.pdf

It is a simple matter of basic law that the function of a merits court (a trial) is to establish 'the facts'.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 02:29 AM   #706
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
All that shows is that a court was not convinced of the submissions put to it.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 02:37 AM   #707
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Also, a conviction or other judgment against a person (such as a denial of a pension, insurance settlement, or other lawfully deserved benefit) that is based upon judicial reasoning that is arbitrary, contradictory, ignores relevant defense arguments, does not adequately evaluate reliability of evidence, or is otherwise materially insufficient may be, depending on the ECHR's evaluation of the details of the case, a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights under Article 6 and other relevant articles.

Relevant case-law includes:

HIRVISAARI v. FINLAND 49684/99 27/09/2001 Paragraphs 30 - 33

MIROVNI INŠTITUT v. SLOVENIA 32303/13 13/03/2018 Para. 43 - 45

Gradinar v. Moldova 7170/02 08/04/2008 Para. 112 - 117

Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine 42310/04 21/04/2011 Para. 280

Vyerentsov v. Ukraine 20372/11 11/04/2013 Para. 84 -89

Donadze v. Georgia 74644/01 07/03/2006 (In French)
From the press release on this case:
Now you are mixing up criminal law and EU human rights law. As a simple example, a person can be convicted of a crime. As a result, thereof, the national government takes steps to deport the offender. The ECHR finds that this is a breach of the offender's right to 'enjoy family life'.

This is one reason the UK want to withdraw from the ECHR as it was constantly thwarted from getting rid of convicted terrorists. A classic example of this is the case of Abu Hamza. The UK could not get rid of this 'hate preacher', thanks to a ruling by ECHR it would 'breach' his 'human rights' (ibid). It successfully extradited his to the USA who had no problems in jailing him as it wasn't under the ECHR jurisdiction.

The ECHR can impose fines but has no power to overturn the verdicts of a state's legislature.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 02:38 AM   #708
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
All things that can be changed by further personal action or government adjudication. Marriages can be dissolved. Land can be sold. Citizenship can be renounced. Driving licenses can be revoked. I can't be un-born, but my birth certificate could be found to be in error and then altered.

So, not facts at all, just as "fool's" gold isn't gold. Merely "judicial" facts. Temporary declarations subject to change.
You have to do all this through a lawyer or through a court.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 02:40 AM   #709
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Our family had a death certificate for a relative, which listed both the wrong gender as well as wrong date of birth. They got the date and place of death correct.

According to Vixen, the "judicial fact" contained on the certificate was the final word. We should just suck it up and not try to alter the "fact" of it.

No thanks.
The wrong name or spelling on any certificate can be corrected under the category of clerical error. Misspellings and typos do not constitute 'judicial facts'. You can challenge any decision by a court. So if they spell your name wrong, just tell'em.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 02:44 AM   #710
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31,485
Yet ANOTHER case of a murder by an insider, who staged a burglary to try to deflect suspicion from themself.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-murder.html

Even Sollecito mentions in his book 'Honor Bound' that he knew of some guy who topped his wife then staged a burglary.

Even Knox had previously stage a burglary to 'prank' a friend. (Some friend!)

I think maybe burglars need to go on a demonstration to protest against their good name being besmirched by murderers.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 04:21 AM   #711
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,475
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The wrong name or spelling on any certificate can be corrected under the category of clerical error. Misspellings and typos do not constitute 'judicial facts'. You can challenge any decision by a court. So if they spell your name wrong, just tell'em.
"Just tell'em"?????

Misspellings and typos DO constitute "judicial facts", and can linger for years or even permanently if not spotted.

You don't "just tell'em".

(However I see in another post you're back claiming that an April Fools prank in Seattle is the same as a staged burglary.... so once more around the guilter merry-go-round, as if that factoid hasn't been exhausted a dozen times over the years. My guess is that you'll be repeating the 'mixed blood' factoid soon...)
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 04:24 AM   #712
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,475
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is a simple matter of basic law that the function of a merits court (a trial) is to establish 'the facts'.
It is a matter of Italian law to see if those basic facts merit a conviction. In 2015 the Italian Supreme Court acquitted AK and RS on the grounds that even if the facts at the Nencini court had been true, the best you could say would be that they'd been in another part of the cottage at a later time.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 08:00 AM   #713
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,475
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The wrong name or spelling on any certificate can be corrected under the category of clerical error. Misspellings and typos do not constitute 'judicial facts'. You can challenge any decision by a court. So if they spell your name wrong, just tell'em.
I missed it, my bad.

In this post you admit that a 'judicial fact' can be easily changed, and your example is on someone's say-so.

So much for judicial facts being engraved in stone, and cited as if they prove something. Your view is that if you present me with a judicial fact, all I need to do is 'just tell'em', and it's no longer valid.

Whose side are you on?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 11:21 AM   #714
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
FTFY. You forgot a few.
https://www.thelocal.it/20160418/ten...court-rulings/
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
All that shows is that a court was not convinced of the submissions put to it.
No, because these ridiculous rulings were final, it shows that the courts WERE convinced of the prosecution's claims. They became "judicial facts". As you find these so infallible, you must agree that a woman who was wearing tight jeans couldn't be raped because she would have to help in removing them and thereby was giving consent. You must agree that winking at a woman is sexual harassment, and that it’s a crime to tell a man ‘you have no balls’.

It's both a judicial and actual fact that RS and AK were 'acquitted for not having committed the act' because the preponderance of the evidence showed they did not kill MK. I truly believe that if there were a video of Guede, and Guede alone, attacking, sexually assaulting and stabbing MK to death you would still insist RS and AK were guilty.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 12:37 PM   #715
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 860
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Another "judicial fact" is that Knox washed her hands of blood in the sink leaving epithelial cells mixed with Kercher's blood.

(Massei MR)

This is scientifically unfounded since DNA is all the same regardless of the source.


https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/DNAbro/what.html

Saliva DNA left in the sink is the same DNA from epithelial cells. They are indistinguishable. It is highly probable that the mixed sample resulted from AK's saliva being wiped up with the blood during collection. The video of this collection shows a wide area of the sink being wiped and two different areas with the same collection swab. Unless that sink was just thoroughly cleaned with bleach prior to the murder, there was absolutely pre-existing DNA in it. I could go to almost any sink and get a mixed sample of DNA if more than one person uses that sink. And whether the source(s) of that DNA was saliva or skin cells or both could not be determined.

Video of sink sample collection at the pertinent spot:

https://youtu.be/APLa0lBfTLo?t=97
Vixen likes to boast how fair Massei was. How can it be fair to convict people on the basis of scientifically illiterate arguments and if the case was such a slam dunk why would it be necessary to resort to these arguments.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 01:33 PM   #716
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yet ANOTHER case of a murder by an insider, who staged a burglary to try to deflect suspicion from themself himself.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-murder.html

Even Sollecito mentions in his book 'Honor Bound' that he knew of some guy who topped his wife then staged a burglary.

Even Knox had previously stage a burglary to 'prank' a friend. (Some friend!)

I think maybe burglars need to go on a demonstration to protest against their good name being besmirched by murderers.
So? Here's a case where a mother was accused and convicted of killing her two little boys for their combined insurance of $10K and staging a burglary to blame it on someone else:

Quote:
Born on January 4, 1970, Darlie Lynn Peck Routier was 26-years-old when she made a frantic 911 call from her suburban brick home in Rowlett, East Dallas, claiming that an intruder had broken in and attacked her family. It was June 6, 1996, and the call was made at 2:31 a.m., with the police arriving merely three minutes later. They found Darlie with wounds on her neck, arms, and shoulder, but her sons – Devon, 6, and Damon, 5 – were already dying due to their stab injuries. There was a torn window screen in the garage, and the weapon, a sharp knife, was found on the kitchen counter.

Darlie spent two days in the hospital recovering from her injuries, whereas her sons died. Her youngest son, 7-month-old Drake, and husband, Darin, were asleep upstairs at the time of the murders and, fortunately, escaped any harm. A total of twelve days later, though, four days after what would have been Devon’s seventh birthday, Darlie was charged and arrested on two counts of capital murder. After all, not only was it discovered that the Routier family had severe financial troubles, but it also came to light that Darlie’s wounds were superficial, as if self-inflicted.
The most severe injury was a slash wound on neck which came within 2mm of her carriod artery and cut it, although right handed, from right to left on this downward angle. Besides knife wounds, one of which went to the bone, she also had severe bruising on her arms and hand. Additionally, being right handed, it's very unlikely she self-inflicted the severe knife wound on her right forearm. Pictures of her wounds.

Quote:
On the other hand, the defense argued that Darlie’s sons’ policies totaled only $10,000. So, if money was the motive, they said, why did she leave Darin unharmed, who had an $800,000 insurance policy? Moreover, one of the cuts Darlie sustained came within millimeters of a major artery, and no one would ever really do so purposefully. The defense also brought up the sock found on the street containing traces of Devon and Damon’s blood, but the prosecutors claimed that it was a part of her ruse as well. They blamed it all on Darlie’s post-partum depression.

However, new DNA tests for her case have been ordered due to technological advancements. Its results, though, are currently pending, from what we can tell.
https://thecinemaholic.com/where-is-darlie-routier-now/

Routier's case has been taken up by The Innocence Project:

Quote:
The admission of the two lawyers represents a significant boost for the defense, as the Innocence Project is selective about which cases to throw it’s legal weight behind. The stepped-up legal muscle also comes at a time when there is a fresh new look at the facts that put Routier on death row.

“Part of the development in Darlie’s case is that the District Attorney’s office, the conviction integrity unit, has agreed to do a wholesale review of the case as well” said J. Stephen Cooper, lead attorney in Routier’s appellate team.

Over the last couple years, teams of attorneys have pored over old files from the case, raising questions over DNA testing that was not available. But the testing has been slow and the case has languished. For Cooper, the new legal firepower underscores his contention that Routier was not the killer.

“I believe they think there’s actual here. And at a minimum she should get a new trial.” he said
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Even Knox had previously stage a burglary to 'prank' a friend. (Some friend!)
Knox along with other friends on April Fool's Day. Fake robbery pranks are among the most common pulled in universities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FzF_Nzj-wQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkfoxCFdc7k

https://youtu.be/Ahmc4zmliko?t=157

Next you'll try and tell us that Knox having a noise citation for a college party is evidence of her propensity to violent crime.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 01:54 PM   #717
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Vixen likes to boast how fair Massei was. How can it be fair to convict people on the basis of scientifically illiterate arguments and if the case was such a slam dunk why would it be necessary to resort to these arguments.
She also forgets that Massei was overturned because his "fair" reasons for convicting were found to be based on "probables" and not on a proven set of facts. Massei was illogical and arbitrary.
Quote:
In truth, a reading of the ruling under appeal does not show that the first-level Corte di Assise confronted [si sia posta, lit. “posed itself”] the problem of assessing the evidence [risultanze probatorie] on the basis of the principle established by C.P.P. Article 533, since the reconstruction of facts is always carried out according to a criterion of probability. Indeed, the word “probable” (or “improbable”) occurs some 39 times in the course of the motivation. Obviously, this is only an observation about vocabulary, but a significant one all the same.

And it was to solidify [consolidare] a conviction [convinzione, i.e. belief] based on assessments of mere probability that the first-level Corte di Assise felt it necessary to come up with a motive [for the crime] which, however, while not being corroborated by any objective piece of evidence, is itself not probable in the least: the sudden choice, on the part of two fine young people, well-disposed towards others [due giovani, bravi e disponibili verso gli altri], of evil for evil’s sake, just like that, without any other point (whence the aggravating circumstance of futile reasons alleged by the Public Minister); [and] all the more incomprehensible due to having been aimed at supporting the criminal action of another youth, Rudy Guede, with whom they had no relationship (there is not, for example, proof of telephone calls or text messages among the three), and [who was] different from them in terms of personal history, character, and human condition. [This] in addition to providing an explanation, not corroborated by any objective piece of evidence and wholly unlikely [to begin with], for the presence on Via Della Pergola of a knife [taken] from the kitchen furnishings of Raffaele Sollecito’s home.
(Hellmann Zanetti)
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 01:59 PM   #718
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
Anyone else notice that Vixen is still refusing to discuss the proven scientific errors in her claims? For example, the mixed samples from the sink are not evidence of Knox having washed her hands of blood? Instead she's still on the "judicial" facts merry-go-round.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 04:23 PM   #719
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 28,583
I was looking for something when I ran across this post in Quora from 2 years ago written by someone who thinks she knows all about the case. Actually, it's a very long list of factual errors about the case and personal judgments about Knox and Sollecito.
https://qr.ae/pGFwrF

Here are a few quotes:

Quote:
1. Amanda Knox was not acquitted beyond the reasonable doubt , she was acquitted beyond the shadow of the doubt, not beyond reasonable doubt.
...Because the DNA found in the crime scene which matched perfectly both hers and her boyfriend’s was supposedly not ‘’sufficient’’ to convict her. Therefore , the Superior Court acquitted her.



2. Also, she did not have an alibi. She created a false alibi.
Edited by Agatha:  Trimmed for rule 4



This is typical of so many PGP. They simply do not know the case facts but think they do.

Last edited by Agatha; 24th June 2021 at 02:27 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th June 2021, 07:22 PM   #720
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,475
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
26. Meredith ‘s body was clearly relocated from the corridor to her bedroom which in addition was locked. Why would the culprit lock her in the bedroom after he had already murdered her?
Guilters are bizarre. They simply make stuff up. Needlessly. No one, not police or prosecutor or judge has said anything like this.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
27. (Filomena) claimed that Meredith never locked her door and she panicked upon hearing that Meredith ‘s door was locked thus she demanded they forcibly opened it, whereas Amanda re assured the Police that Meredith ‘s locked door was nothing unusual delaying thus the discovery of Meredith ‘s body.
Ah, er, no. Filomena became concerned when she learned that Meredith was without her phones. Why do guilters feel the need to just make stuff up? Needlessly.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
28.And Guede had no actual motive to brutally murder Meredith. Meredith was stabbed 40 times , too many for one assailant to have inflicted alone.
What a galacticly stupid thing to claim. Once again, no cop, prosecutor, forensic expert or judge said anything near this. Indeed the first **convicting** judge said that the motive for the killing was Guede's and Guede's alone.

To steal Welshman's observation, if the case against the pair was so clear cut, why the need to lie, embellish and make stuff up?

The best you could say is that this poster has no working knowledge of anything to do with this wrongful prosecution.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 19th June 2021 at 07:24 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.