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

Closed Thread
Old 23rd August 2020, 04:37 PM   #3081
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
In fact, in the Knox - Sollecito case, the primary alleged evidence, the alleged DNA profile of Kercher alleged found on the knife blade and the alleged DNA profile of Sollecito allegedly found on the bra clasp were improperly collected, stored, and analyzed, and thus were not really admissible evidence. They are only evidence of abysmal failures by the scientific police and obvious DNA contamination being used as alleged evidence. The presumption of innocence implies that the prosecution must convincingly demonstrate that any DNA evidence they present is credible, and that the proper forensic science standards relating to, for example, collection, storage, analysis, an freedom from contamination. When the alleged DNA evidence does not meet those standards of credibility, it must not be considered admissible.
This quote needs to be read again and again.

Every time some "guilter" goes on about the DNA evidence, and whether or not enough peeks were present, etc., etc., the points made in the quote above should be quoted back.

Dr. Stefano Maffei, the sole Italian legal expert I could find who supported the Nencini conviction in 2014, and who agreed completely with the ISC's 2014 reversal of the Hellmann acquitals..... even Dr. Maffei acknowledged that the DNA had been "junk", legally speaking.

Put that quote on speed dial. It's all anyone needs to understand how the case had been bungled from the git go.
__________________
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 24th August 2020, 08:12 PM   #3082
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
In some research for Part 2 of a 5 year anniversary summary-analysis of the Marasca CSC panel publication of its motivation report, I came across 2 interesting points.

1. I have been stating that the Italian Assize Court of Appeal consists of 2 professional judges and 5 lay judges (Giudice Popolare). That's wrong. It really consists of 2 professional judges and 6 lay judges. Both the Hellmann Court and the Nencini Court tribunals had that configuration.

Of course, no one really knows what influence the lay judges have on judgments in practice. I suspect they are window dressing.

2. The Nencini Court MR lists Raffaele Sollecito as "Presente" but Amanda Knox as "Contumace". "Contumace" means "in default by absence" and the English equivalent is "contumacy".

For those interested in the moot topic (for this case) of extradition, recall that the US - Italy extradition treaty makes special provision for the request of a person convicted in contumacy. The treaty provides in that case for the US Secretary of State to request additional information compared to that sought for someone tried in person, going back to the "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" for arrest (whether or not arrest had taken place), as well as the trial records. Thus, on the basis of extradition review, it may be a good idea to be contumacious if you're a US resident expecting a probably unfair trial in a foreign country.

Because Knox was represented by her lawyers at the Nencini trial, I was uncertain if her absence from the trial was contumacious, but the word on the MR shows that this was her official status according to the Italian judiciary.

Last edited by Numbers; 24th August 2020 at 08:41 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2020, 10:37 PM   #3083
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
I'm desperate to find the origin of the phrase, "******* crazy". Does it predate the guilter-nutters in the Knox/Sollecito wrongful prosecution?

TJMK is now claiming that the publication of books by Guede, and then by Mignini **might** result in "Knox returning to Italy to finish out her term."

It used to be that every once in a while one of Peter Quennell's regulars would beg him to quit making these stupid predictions.

Quennell once claimed that the Italian judiciary was poised to reverse the 2015 acquittals, and arrest Marasca and Bruno, two Supreme Court judges. Now, years later, Guede and Mignini writing books **might** do the trick!

He also claimed that Mignini's lawsuit (and parallel criminal action) against Sollecito & Gumbel for "Honor Bound", had not been thrown out as baseless.

He claimed it was "withdrawn" so that Sollecito & Gumbel could apologize to Mignini within a week of the withdrawal. Years later we're still waiting for the apology.

There are about a dozen other examples.

But stupid me, giving this oxygen by referring to it here. My bad.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited for breach of rule 10. If you must swear in your posts in the public sections, you must type the word in full and correctly spelt and allow the autocensor to work.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Agatha; 25th August 2020 at 12:28 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
Old 25th August 2020, 12:24 AM   #3084
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
LOL! This is at the top of TJMK' Front Page:

Quote:
Headsup: Escalating shrillness of pro-Knox commenters on YouTube & Twitter may reflect fear of devastating Mignini & Guede books which could see Knox back in Italy serving her term. Style & internet footprint experts suspect these commenters are really Knox & family: Tom Graham, Eve Kendall, Francesco, Germart, Imateapot51 & John Milton.
They're actually concerned about Youtube and twitter commenters! "Style & internet footprint experts"! "devastating Mignini & Guede books" !! Good God in Heaven. Does it get any more ridiculous? You almost have to feel sorry for the pathetic morons who come up with this kind of tripe.

Oh, and that stupid woman on True crime podcast was saying that she has an audio of Amanda telling Mignini that she used to hang out with Guede and smoke hashish. Uh huh. I guess Giuliano just decided he was going to keep that little gem under wraps for some odd reason.

Slick Pete is, once again, trying to tie Raff to the Rocco Sollecito crime family. Can pictures of Dr. Sollecito attending Rocco's memorial in Bari and Raff hanging out with gangsters on the beaches of the DR be far behind ....again? Moronic statements like this are already being made:
"Raffaele once said he really liked risotto, the chicken flavored rice dish. Maybe it was a play on words, Rizutto." 'Hopeful' really had to scrape the bottom of the rice barrel for that one!
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 25th August 2020, 01:09 AM   #3085
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'm desperate to find the origin of the phrase, "******* crazy". Does it predate the guilter-nutters in the Knox/Sollecito wrongful prosecution?

TJMK is now claiming that the publication of books by Guede, and then by Mignini **might** result in "Knox returning to Italy to finish out her term."

It used to be that every once in a while one of Peter Quennell's regulars would beg him to quit making these stupid predictions.

Quennell once claimed that the Italian judiciary was poised to reverse the 2015 acquittals, and arrest Marasca and Bruno, two Supreme Court judges. Now, years later, Guede and Mignini writing books **might** do the trick!

He also claimed that Mignini's lawsuit (and parallel criminal action) against Sollecito & Gumbel for "Honor Bound", had not been thrown out as baseless.

He claimed it was "withdrawn" so that Sollecito & Gumbel could apologize to Mignini within a week of the withdrawal. Years later we're still waiting for the apology.

There are about a dozen other examples.

But stupid me, giving this oxygen by referring to it here. My bad.


Hahaha is Quennell really making claims such as this?!

If so, then the delusions over there in Bizarro World only appear to be getting more extreme and more weird. And it only serves to show a pitiful lack of understanding of criminal law (and of the ethics which support and justify laws).

Knox has no "term" to "finish off". She's had her conviction (and therefore...... her sentence associated with that conviction) anulled, and she's been definitively acquitted (as has Sollecito).

The only thing that could possibly happen is if new evidence comes to light - new evidence which is credible and reliable, that is - and if this new evidence is sufficient to warrant a completely new trial under Italy's double jeopardy exclusions.

But obviously anything written by either Guede or Mignini doesn't fall into the category of "credible and reliable" - for reasons which should be obvious. Obvious, that is, to everyone except that small, over-invested cadre of pro-guilt commentators who appear to (want to) believe anything and everything if that thing is detrimental to Knox (and Sollecito)

Edited by Agatha:  Edited rule 10 breach in quote

Last edited by Agatha; 25th August 2020 at 12:29 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 25th August 2020, 05:48 AM   #3086
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL! This is at the top of TJMK' Front Page:



They're actually concerned about Youtube and twitter commenters! "Style & internet footprint experts"! "devastating Mignini & Guede books" !! Good God in Heaven. Does it get any more ridiculous? You almost have to feel sorry for the pathetic morons who come up with this kind of tripe.

Oh, and that stupid woman on True crime podcast was saying that she has an audio of Amanda telling Mignini that she used to hang out with Guede and smoke hashish. Uh huh. I guess Giuliano just decided he was going to keep that little gem under wraps for some odd reason.

Slick Pete is, once again, trying to tie Raff to the Rocco Sollecito crime family. Can pictures of Dr. Sollecito attending Rocco's memorial in Bari and Raff hanging out with gangsters on the beaches of the DR be far behind ....again? Moronic statements like this are already being made:
"Raffaele once said he really liked risotto, the chicken flavored rice dish. Maybe it was a play on words, Rizutto." 'Hopeful' really had to scrape the bottom of the rice barrel for that one!

Oh dear.

(And Quennell sure does love the word "shrill" - or as here, "shrillness" - to describe people who think differently from him, doesn't he? )
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 Back to Top
Old 25th August 2020, 06:44 AM   #3087
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
The only thing that could possibly happen is if new evidence comes to light - new evidence which is credible and reliable, that is - and if this new evidence is sufficient to warrant a completely new trial under Italy's double jeopardy exclusions.
What are those exclusions? I can't find anything which spells it out.

I found France's exclusions, a final-definitive acquittal can be set aside if it had been the result of fraud, although I can't find what constitutes "fraud" in that context. For instance, having the final court coming to a wrong decision is not necessarily fraud. Fraud is something other.

In most countries, "new evidence" seems only to be a reason that the defence, not the prosecution, can apply for a revision.

Still - a small set of nutters in this case have always predicted that, "days from now" some disaster-reversal will befall Sollecito, Gumbel, Knox, or anyone "outed" by "style & internet footprint experts" as Knox sycophants. (Me, I keep a "go-bag" ready in the garage, with cash in 5 currencies, and a collection of untraceable car licence plates. Passports from various countries, wigs, fake beards, etc.)

It's been 66 months since Italy definitively acquitted the pair. (Has it been that long?)
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 25th August 2020 at 06:48 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 Back to Top
Old 25th August 2020, 07:43 AM   #3088
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Hahaha is Quennell really making claims such as this?!

If so, then the delusions over there in Bizarro World only appear to be getting more extreme and more weird. And it only serves to show a pitiful lack of understanding of criminal law (and of the ethics which support and justify laws).

Knox has no "term" to "finish off". She's had her conviction (and therefore...... her sentence associated with that conviction) anulled, and she's been definitively acquitted (as has Sollecito).

The only thing that could possibly happen is if new evidence comes to light - new evidence which is credible and reliable, that is - and if this new evidence is sufficient to warrant a completely new trial under Italy's double jeopardy exclusions.

But obviously anything written by either Guede or Mignini doesn't fall into the category of "credible and reliable" - for reasons which should be obvious. Obvious, that is, to everyone except that small, over-invested cadre of pro-guilt commentators who appear to (want to) believe anything and everything if that thing is detrimental to Knox (and Sollecito)
LJ, I don't see those provisions in the CPP. Can you point out your source for these Italian laws?

Here's the laws (CPP) I am aware of; they don't appear to allow any retrial following a final acquittal, no matter what.

Quote:
Art. 648.
Irrevocabilità delle sentenze e dei decreti penali.

1. Sono irrevocabili le sentenze pronunciate in giudizio contro le quali non è ammessa impugnazione diversa dalla revisione.

2. Se l'impugnazione è ammessa, la sentenza è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporla o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile. Se vi è stato ricorso per cassazione, la sentenza è irrevocabile dal giorno in cui è pronunciata l'ordinanza o la sentenza che dichiara inammissibile o rigetta il ricorso.

3. Il decreto penale di condanna è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporre opposizione o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile.

Art. 649.
Divieto di un secondo giudizio.

1. L'imputato prosciolto o condannato con sentenza o decreto penale divenuti irrevocabili non può essere di nuovo sottoposto a procedimento penale per il medesimo fatto, neppure se questo viene diversamente considerato per il titolo, per il grado o per le circostanze, salvo quanto disposto dagli articoli 69 comma 2 e 345.

2. Se ciò nonostante viene di nuovo iniziato procedimento penale, il giudice in ogni stato e grado del processo pronuncia sentenza di proscioglimento o di non luogo a procedere, enunciandone la causa nel dispositivo.

Art. 650.
Esecutività delle sentenze e dei decreti penali.

1. Salvo che sia diversamente disposto, le sentenze e i decreti penali hanno forza esecutiva quando sono divenuti irrevocabili.

2. Le sentenze di non luogo a procedere hanno forza esecutiva quando non sono più soggette a impugnazione.
Google translation (not edited):

Art. 648.
Irrevocability of sentences and criminal decrees.

1. Sentences pronounced in court against which no appeal other than revision is admitted are irrevocable.

2. If the appeal is admitted, the sentence is irrevocable when the deadline for proposing it or the one for challenging the order declaring it inadmissible has expired. If there has been an appeal by cassation, the sentence is irrevocable from the day on which the order or sentence declaring the appeal inadmissible or rejecting is pronounced.

3. The criminal decree of conviction is irrevocable when the deadline for proposing opposition or the one for challenging the order declaring it inadmissible has expired in vain.

Art. 649.
Prohibition of a second judgment.

1. The accused person acquitted or convicted by a sentence or criminal decree which has become irrevocable cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings again for the same fact, even if this is considered differently for the title, grade or circumstances, except as provided by articles 69 paragraph 2 and 345.

2. If, nevertheless, criminal proceedings are initiated again, the judge in each state and grade of the trial pronounces a sentence of acquittal or not to proceed, stating the cause in the device.

Art. 650.
Enforcement of sentences and criminal decrees.

1. Unless otherwise provided, penal sentences and decrees have executive force when they have become irrevocable.

2. The judgments of no place to proceed have executive force when they are no longer subject to appeal.

Source of Italian CPP text:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...ione-giudicato

Last edited by Numbers; 25th August 2020 at 07:44 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 Back to Top
Old 25th August 2020, 07:49 AM   #3089
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
LJ, I don't see those provisions in the CPP. Can you point out your source for these Italian laws?

Here's the laws (CPP) I am aware of; they don't appear to allow any retrial following a final acquittal, no matter what.



Google translation (not edited):

Art. 648.
Irrevocability of sentences and criminal decrees.

1. Sentences pronounced in court against which no appeal other than revision is admitted are irrevocable.

2. If the appeal is admitted, the sentence is irrevocable when the deadline for proposing it or the one for challenging the order declaring it inadmissible has expired. If there has been an appeal by cassation, the sentence is irrevocable from the day on which the order or sentence declaring the appeal inadmissible or rejecting is pronounced.

3. The criminal decree of conviction is irrevocable when the deadline for proposing opposition or the one for challenging the order declaring it inadmissible has expired in vain.

Art. 649.
Prohibition of a second judgment.

1. The accused person acquitted or convicted by a sentence or criminal decree which has become irrevocable cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings again for the same fact, even if this is considered differently for the title, grade or circumstances, except as provided by articles 69 paragraph 2 and 345.

2. If, nevertheless, criminal proceedings are initiated again, the judge in each state and grade of the trial pronounces a sentence of acquittal or not to proceed, stating the cause in the device.

Art. 650.
Enforcement of sentences and criminal decrees.

1. Unless otherwise provided, penal sentences and decrees have executive force when they have become irrevocable.

2. The judgments of no place to proceed have executive force when they are no longer subject to appeal.

Source of Italian CPP text:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...ione-giudicato
Here are the exception CPPs:

Quote:
Art. 345.
Difetto di una condizione di procedibilità. Riproponibilità dell'azione penale.

1. Il provvedimento di archiviazione e la sentenza di proscioglimento o di non luogo a procedere, anche se non più soggetta a impugnazione, con i quali è stata dichiarata la mancanza della querela, della istanza, della richiesta o dell'autorizzazione a procedere, non impediscono l'esercizio dell'azione penale per il medesimo fatto e contro la medesima persona se è in seguito proposta la querela, l'istanza, la richiesta o è concessa l'autorizzazione ovvero se è venuta meno la condizione personale che rendeva necessaria l'autorizzazione.

2. La stessa disposizione si applica quando il giudice accerta la mancanza di una condizione di procedibilità diversa da quelle indicate nel comma 1, nonché quando, dopo che è stata pronunciata sentenza di non luogo a procedere o di non doversi procedere a norma dell’articolo 72-bis, lo stato di incapacità dell’imputato viene meno o si accerta che è stato erroneamente dichiarato (1).

(1) Comma così modificato dall’art. 1, comma 23, L. 23 giugno 2017, n. 103.
Google translation (not edited):

Art. 345
Defect of a condition of admissibility. Resumption of the criminal action.

1. The dismissal measure and the sentence of acquittal or not to proceed, even if no longer subject to appeal, with which the lack of the complaint, the application, the request or the authorization to proceed was declared, do not prevent the prosecution from being prosecuted for the same fact and against the same person if a lawsuit, petition, request or authorization is subsequently granted, or if the personal condition that made it necessary authorization.

2. The same provision applies when the judge ascertains the lack of a condition of admissibility other than those indicated in paragraph 1, as well as when, after a sentence of non-prosecution or of not having to proceed pursuant to article 72-bis, the accused's state of incapacity is no longer valid or it is ascertained that it has been wrongly declared (1).

(1) Paragraph thus amended by art. 1, paragraph 23, L. 23 June 2017, n. 103.

Quote:
Art. 69.
Morte dell'imputato.

1. Se risulta la morte dell'imputato, in ogni stato e grado del processo il giudice, sentiti il pubblico ministero e il difensore, pronuncia sentenza a norma dell'articolo 129.

2. La sentenza non impedisce l'esercizio dell'azione penale per il medesimo fatto e contro la medesima persona, qualora successivamente si accerti che la morte dell'imputato è stata erroneamente dichiarata.
Google translated (not edited):

Art. 69
Death of the accused.

1. If the death of the accused is found, the judge, after consulting the public prosecutor and the defender, pronounces a sentence in accordance with article 129 at any stage and stage of the trial.

2. The sentence does not prevent the prosecution for the same fact and against the same person, if it is subsequently ascertained that the death of the accused has been erroneously declared.
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 25th August 2020, 09:59 AM   #3090
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Mignini's book

"The former prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the book "100 crimes" talks about the murder of Meredith Kercher."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJt42woG4G4
__________________
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 25th August 2020, 11:10 AM   #3091
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
"The former prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the book "100 crimes" talks about the murder of Meredith Kercher."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJt42woG4G4
The author of the book is apparently Alvaro Fiorucci.

""100 delitti" di Alvaro Fiorucci- (Morlacchi editore )- è un affresco di grandi e piccoli fatti che raccontano mezzo secolo di cronaca italiana.

Google translation (not edited):

"100 crimes" by Alvaro Fiorucci - (Morlacchi publisher) - is a fresco of large and small facts that tell half a century of Italian news.
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 25th August 2020, 11:18 AM   #3092
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh dear.

(And Quennell sure does love the word "shrill" - or as here, "shrillness" - to describe people who think differently from him, doesn't he? )
The TJMK crew has a true penchant for hyperbole. Apparently, they think it adds to their credibility.
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 26th August 2020, 03:47 AM   #3093
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The author of the book is apparently Alvaro Fiorucci.

""100 delitti" di Alvaro Fiorucci- (Morlacchi editore )- è un affresco di grandi e piccoli fatti che raccontano mezzo secolo di cronaca italiana.

Google translation (not edited):

"100 crimes" by Alvaro Fiorucci - (Morlacchi publisher) - is a fresco of large and small facts that tell half a century of Italian news.
If Fiorucci is the older geezer in the video then he is the one who claimed that the kitchen knife was the "murder weapon" and that "blood traces were found on the handle and on the blade, which lead to Amanda Knox" which was never the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbOjYpH1WdM&t=1082s He makes the claim at 42:09

If he is getting things that wrong and they end up in book, it goes straight into the bloodstream of the Italian public.

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 26th August 2020, 09:07 AM   #3094
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
If Fiorucci is the older geezer in the video then he is the one who claimed that the kitchen knife was the "murder weapon" and that "blood traces were found on the handle and on the blade, which lead to Amanda Knox" which was never the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbOjYpH1WdM&t=1082s He makes the claim at 42:09

If he is getting things that wrong and they end up in book, it goes straight into the bloodstream of the Italian public.

Hoots
Based on the thumbnail picture, the older gent on the right side of the YouTube image, face visible, is Alvaro Fiorucci. The one on the left, facing at an angle toward the other two seated at the table, appears to be Mignini.
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 26th August 2020, 09:57 AM   #3095
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
If Fiorucci is the older geezer in the video then he is the one who claimed that the kitchen knife was the "murder weapon" and that "blood traces were found on the handle and on the blade, which lead to Amanda Knox" which was never the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbOjYpH1WdM&t=1082s He makes the claim at 42:09

If he is getting things that wrong and they end up in book, it goes straight into the bloodstream of the Italian public.

Hoots

If so, I wonder what (if any) practical effect it might have on Sollecito. It'd obviously be much more than just a shame if it made anything more difficult for him. And if so, I wonder if he might seek recourse through the courts?

On the other hand, I can't think that Knox cares two shakes about what is or isn't published in Italy. Thankfully.
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 Back to Top
Old 26th August 2020, 11:40 AM   #3096
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
If Fiorucci is the older geezer in the video then he is the one who claimed that the kitchen knife was the "murder weapon" and that "blood traces were found on the handle and on the blade, which lead to Amanda Knox" which was never the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbOjYpH1WdM&t=1082s He makes the claim at 42:09
Thanks for posting this, Tom. I remember watching this slop and seeing that around the 42-minute mark. It's just a flat-out lie. And I remember being amused that neither Comodi or Mignini corrected him even though both knew full well it was a lie. Somebody should have told whoever produced this show that it's customary to have both sides of an issue covered. Maybe that would have helped. Ever so slightly.
AnimalFriendly 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 26th August 2020, 12:36 PM   #3097
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Thanks for posting this, Tom. I remember watching this slop and seeing that around the 42-minute mark. It's just a flat-out lie. And I remember being amused that neither Comodi or Mignini corrected him even though both knew full well it was a lie. Somebody should have told whoever produced this show that it's customary to have both sides of an issue covered. Maybe that would have helped. Ever so slightly.
Also in the same video. When questioned about her role in the proceedings the subtitle interprets Comodi as saying "... but I obviously studied the papers very well, I'm possibly even more impartial than Giuliano, who was dragged in personally." I think that's an astonishing statement for Comodi to make since she seems to be suggesting that Mignini was being levered by the events. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbOjYpH1WdM&t=1112s The statement is made at position 17:57, I think its very revealing.

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 26th August 2020, 12:53 PM   #3098
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Also in the same video. When questioned about her role in the proceedings the subtitle interprets Comodi as saying "... but I obviously studied the papers very well, I'm possibly even more impartial than Giuliano, who was dragged in personally." I think that's an astonishing statement for Comodi to make since she seems to be suggesting that Mignini was being levered by the events. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbOjYpH1WdM&t=1112s The statement is made at position 17:57, I think its very revealing.

Hoots


"Even more impartial"


Has she even stopped to consider the logic fail here, and what it might imply
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 Back to Top
Old 26th August 2020, 02:17 PM   #3099
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post

"Even more impartial"


Has she even stopped to consider the logic fail here, and what it might imply
Strangely (and don't hate me for it) I give this one to Comodi. She had never been singled out as Mignini had been. (Don't get me wrong, for the most part he was singled out because of his wild theories and dogged refusal to admit mistakes. He was singled out because he presided over not allowing RS and AK to have adequate counsel at interrogation, or, at least, he sould have directed the police to follow the law....) But he **was** singled out.

With that said, Comodi could be referring to Mignini losing his edge over it all. I mean, acc. to Barbie Nadeau Comodi was able to push back against Mignini, in the sense that Nadeau reported that Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini had gone to trial with the "Satanic rite" theory.

Comodi could have been referring to watching as Mignini allowed himself to be pushed around by outside forces, rather than just prosecuting the case using known- and knowable-facts. Indeed, by the time of the Hellmann trial, Mignini was speculating that instead of being physically involved in the murder, that Knox had been directing the boys from out in the hallway.

Comodi had a ring-side seat into how both the investigation and initial prosecution became "amnesiac" and incapable of allowing a court to convict (as per the finding of the 2015 Marasca-Bruno court). She was a willing participant in the prosecution, contributed her own outlandish stuff.....

...... but when she compared herself to Mignini, she would simply see herself as more impartial and less invested. I don't think that's necessarily a "logic fail". It may be implying something as simple as, "If I'd been the lead prosecutor, there never would have been an annulment of a conviction."
__________________
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 26th August 2020, 03:18 PM   #3100
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Strangely (and don't hate me for it) I give this one to Comodi. She had never been singled out as Mignini had been. (Don't get me wrong, for the most part he was singled out because of his wild theories and dogged refusal to admit mistakes. He was singled out because he presided over not allowing RS and AK to have adequate counsel at interrogation, or, at least, he sould have directed the police to follow the law....) But he **was** singled out.

With that said, Comodi could be referring to Mignini losing his edge over it all. I mean, acc. to Barbie Nadeau Comodi was able to push back against Mignini, in the sense that Nadeau reported that Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini had gone to trial with the "Satanic rite" theory.

Comodi could have been referring to watching as Mignini allowed himself to be pushed around by outside forces, rather than just prosecuting the case using known- and knowable-facts. Indeed, by the time of the Hellmann trial, Mignini was speculating that instead of being physically involved in the murder, that Knox had been directing the boys from out in the hallway.

Comodi had a ring-side seat into how both the investigation and initial prosecution became "amnesiac" and incapable of allowing a court to convict (as per the finding of the 2015 Marasca-Bruno court). She was a willing participant in the prosecution, contributed her own outlandish stuff.....

...... but when she compared herself to Mignini, she would simply see herself as more impartial and less invested. I don't think that's necessarily a "logic fail". It may be implying something as simple as, "If I'd been the lead prosecutor, there never would have been an annulment of a conviction."
Bill, your speculations or hypotheses about Comodi's views compared to Mignini's views may (or may not) make sense.

But I think LJ may have been pointing out that "impartiality" - the quality of being "impartial" - is generally defined as an all-or-none characteristic or behavior, without quantifiable degrees.

Definition of impartial

: not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impartial

I think it would be more correct to say that Comodi's legal strategy against Knox and Sollecito was somewhat less inventive in its dishonesty or attempted to appear more rational than Mignini's.
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 26th August 2020, 03:40 PM   #3101
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I think it would be more correct to say that Comodi's legal strategy against Knox and Sollecito was somewhat less inventive in its dishonesty or attempted to appear more rational than Mignini's.
It's probably true that Comodi meant something different by "impartial", that what you, I, LJ or any other reasonable person would mean by "impartial".

The context of Comodi's position was as an assistant to Mignini who, by law, was lead prosecutor. For Comodi to say **ANYTHING** even remotely critical of Mignini in that context is huge.....

In fairness to the context in which Comodi found/finds herself, she would not have seen what she'd done as being, "inventive in her dishonesty." Therefore she necessarily means something more straightforward by suggesting that Mignini had not been impartial.

Indeed, she may have had access to/opinions about how the Narducci debacle for Mignini had carried over into the prosecutions he conducted in the Kercher murder.

Comodi could very well have been thinking about Narducci, or even Douglas Preston and how Mignini had allowed outside influences to colour his conduct as a prosecutor starting Nov 2, 2007.
__________________
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 26th August 2020, 10:34 PM   #3102
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
In commemoration of the 5th anniversary of the public release of the Marasca CSC panel's motivation report, 7 September 2015, I have prepared a review of that document.

The following post contains only Part II, summarizing the CSC's application of Italian law to the Nencini Court of Appeal judgment in order to show the reasoning of the Marasca panel in reaching its judgment. For brevity I will refer back to Part I to reference specific Italian laws.

An Analysis of the Marasca CSC Panel Motivation Report:
Annulment of the Nencini Court Judgment of Conviction and Definitive Acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for Murder/Rape Charges


Part II – Legal Reasoning Compelling the Judgment

1. Annulment without referral of the Nencini Court judgment

1. “The ascertained errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] and the logical inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict from the funditus [foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled.” (Section 9, p. 46 of the translation*)

2. “Even on first reading, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] that invalidate the overall structure of the argument ab imis [from the deepest {foundations; that is, totally}] do not escape notice.” (Section 6, p. 33)

3. The reasons for annulling can be summarized by the inability – that is, failure - of the Nencini court judgment to provide an evidentiary framework that can suitably – that is, with fairness and rationality - support a judgment of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as required under Italian law CPP Article 533, according to its text as reformed by law number 46 passed in 2006. (Section 9, p. 46)

4. The Nencini court judgment suffers from a misguided understanding of the role of a referral court. The Chieffi CSC panel's annulment of the Hellmann court judgment included in its reasoning non-binding commentary on the merits of the case as well as the legally binding directives to test a DNA sample and to reformulate the logic (not the evidence), of the Hellmann court motivation report. The Nencini court mistakenly adopted the Chieffi CSC panel's non-binding commentary as binding, and thus forcing “the affirmation of guilt of the two accused”. The Nencini court was thus drawn into logical inconsistencies and obvious errors in judgment. (Sections 3 and 3.1, p. 25)

2. Here is a brief listing of the logical inconsistencies and errors in law and judgment in the Nencini court judgment. The totality of these motivated the CSC's annulment without referral of the Nencini judgment with the CSC delivering a judgment of acquittal.

1. Violation of Italian Constitution Article 111 and CPP Article 526 paragraph 1- bis in allowing statements from Guede, a person who chose not to be examined by the accused or their lawyers, to be used as proof of guilt of the accused. (Section 4.3.2, p. 29)

2. Violation of Italian jurisprudence in the failure to identify a motive which could, in rationality, bind the two accused to the convicted murderer, Guede, in committing the crime, in the face of incoherent (ambiguous and contradictory) alleged circumstantial evidence. The many alleged motives offered were contradictory.There was no proven link between Guede and Sollecito, and the link between Guede and Knox was insubstantial – there was proof that she had met him on only a few instances, with no indication of any significant relationship. The argument of such lack of any relationship to a stranger was used to claim that it was unreasonable to suspect either of Kercher's other flatmates, Romanelli or Mezzetti, and thus should also apply to Sollecito. (Section 6.1, p. 33 – 34)

3. Judicial error, contrary to defense rights, in the Nencini court reasoning that the establishment of the exact time of Kercher's death was irrelevant. The “exact determination of Kercher's time of death is an unavoidable factual prerequisite for the verification of the defendant's alibi ….” The defense {expert} “has offered a much more reliable analysis {than has the prosecution} in this respect, one anchored to incontrovertible factual data. Indeed, examination of telephone traffic has revealed that, after saluting her English friend at 9pm, the young woman had vainly attempted to call her relatives in England, as had been her daily habit, while a final contact was recorded at 10.13pm, so that the timeline was restricted further to the range of 9.30 -10.13pm or thereabouts.” The rejection of this expert opinion by the Nencini court was thus apparently either a judicial error consisting of a violation of the defense's right to admit valid relevant evidence or a judicial error of judgment in failing to neutrally {fairly and reasonably} evaluate that evidence. Either is a violation of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution. (Section 6.2, p. 34 – 35)

4. Judicial error, contrary to Italian laws CPP Article 192 paragraph 2, Article 244 paragraph 2, and Article 254-bis, and to the relevant jurisprudence, in the Nencini court's assumption attributing evidentiary value to the alleged evidence against the accused obtained from the DNA profile testing. The means of collecting, storage, and analysis of the alleged evidentiary objects – the kitchen knife and the bra clasp – did not meet the standards of forensic science required for judicial certainty {including for chain of custody and freedom from contamination}. Furthermore, the methods of DNA testing of the samples claimed to have evidence of guilt were contrary to the international protocols, established by empirical studies, required to obtain credible results. Each element of alleged circumstantial evidence must meet the criteria of being serious, precise, and consistent according to CPP Article 192 paragraph 2, in order to support the deduction of a fact from that element. The DNA alleged circumstantial evidence used to deduce the alleged guilt of the accused lacked the properties of being serious, precise, and consistent. Therefore, that alleged circumstantial evidence was not even of importance or significance as circumstantial evidence, according to Italian law and jurisprudence. It was thus of no value for deducing a fact or even for confirming any other already proven fact. The Nencini court committed an error in judgment “in assigning … circumstantial value to the findings of the genetic {DNA} investigations incapable of {repeated} amplification {to verify or falsify the ambiguous results of Stefanoni's unverified LCN DNA profiling methods} or the result of unorthodox {forensically improper} methods of collection.” (Section 7.1, p. 38 – 42)

5. The failures of the lack of necessary repeatability in the DNA investigations are not corrected, as apparently claimed by the Nencini court, by the {partial} fulfillment of the requirements of CPP Article 360, in which some of the DNA tests were performed in the presence of defense experts {in reality, some critical ones were conducted before the accused had lawyers or defense experts who could attend the testing}. CPP Article 360 is intended to capture the state of alleged evidence at one time, before it may change, when that evidence can be objectively preserved as, for example, by a photograph or other clear record. On the other hand, the {LCN DNA} evidence “ – not repeated and not capable of repetition in any way – cannot take on either probative or circumstantial relevance,” because for scientific validity, the results needed to be verified or falsified. The repeatability requirement is a necessity for the internationally-accepted forensic science method for the identification of persons from LCN DNA because the “indicative value {that is, the degree of confidence in the reliability of the LCN DNA test result} is inextricably linked to its {the test result 's} repetition or repeatability”. (Section 7.2, p. 42)

6. There are a number of obvious (“palese”) logical inconsistencies in the Nencini court judgment. Prominent among these was the claim of a “selective cleaning” (“pulizia selettiva”) discussed in the Nencini motivation report in the section titled “The alteration of the scene of the crime” (“La alterazione della scene del delitto”) beginning on page 80. In reality, there can be no selective cleanup, and experts are not even required to attest to ths proposition {because there is no way to distinguish one person's blood or DNA without special scientific equipment as used in forensic laboratories, non-portable equipment of substantial size and complexity that the accused certainly did not have; nor did Nencini provide any physical explanation of how the impossible selective cleanup could have been done}. Furthermore, it is well-known that any cleaning of blood would leave traces (swirls) evident under luminol testing. The finding of a number of small blood traces outside the murder room shows that there was no attempt at a clean-up. Thus, the total absence (“mancanza”) of any biological traces (DNA or other biological evidence) attributable to the two accused in the murder room or on the body of the victim, while there was plentiful evidence of Guede, must be taken to mean that Knox or Sollecito, the accused in this case, neither had been in the room where the murder had taken place nor had a role in Kercher's murder or rape. (Sections 8 and 8.1, p. 42 - 43)

7. The Nencini court motivation report also contained an obvious misrepresentation (“travisamento”) of evidence with respect to the alleged blood traces in the other rooms, especially the corridor. The motivation report stated that these traces were blood. However, the Scientific Police, using a specific chemical reagent (TMB, a highly sensitive test for the presence of blood), had recorded in their State of Work Progress documentation that the presence of blood was excluded for these traces. The motivation report neglected to include any mention of this documented evidence that the traces were found not to be blood by the police. (Section 8.1, p. 43)

8. Another obviously illogical reasoning in the motivation report was that the luminol traces were stated to be necessarily blood because of the “context” - that is, they were found in a house in which a murder had occurred, although the defense had pointed out that (as is well-known) luminol reacts with other substances besides blood, including cleaning detergents, fruit juices, and many others. The motivation report's argument is so weak that it does not require refutation; it ignores the fact that the house had been lived in and had been subject to cleanings and ordinary use prior to the crime. Hence, the luminol traces in question are excluded as being traces of blood or willfully removed under the circumstances (of the murder). (Section 8.1, p. 43 - 44)

9. Yet another glaring logical inconsistency is the explanation provided in the Nencini court motivation report for the theft of Kercher's mobile phones. The phones had been thrown, by one or more unknown persons moving away from the cottage, during darkness, into apparent open country (really the garden of a private residence) next to a road but lower than the road's surface. The implausible explanation offered by the Nencini court was that the accused had disposed of the phones to avoid any possible ringing of the phones that could lead to the discovery of the victim's body; this fails to consider that any such purpose could more plausibly be accomplished by turning off the phones or removing their batteries. (Section 8.1, p. 44)

10. Furthermore, it is obviously illogical – and disrespectful to trial facts – for the Nencini court to have reconstructed the motive for the murder as resulting from alleged disagreements between Kercher and Knox, exacerbated by Kercher's alleged grievance with Knox for letting Guede into the flat and his improperly using the toilet. This is not in accord with one of Guede's statements, a “truth” he offered at his trial (and, since Guede refused cross-examination, not usable against Knox or Sollecito under Italian law), that he was in the bathroom when he heard Kercher arguing with another person, whose voice he perceived to be that of a female, so the cause of the quarrel certainly could not be his improper use of the toilet. (Section 8.1, p. 44)

11. Also illogical and contradictory is the Nencini court's argument, in an attempt to give substance to the alleged disagreements between Kercher and Knox (although denied by other testimonies), that Kercher allegedly blamed Knox for the theft of Kercher's money and credit cards, although Knox and Sollecito had been finally acquitted of any such theft because “the fact (of the crime of stealing the money and credit cards) did not exist”. (Section 8.1, p. 44)

12. The Nencini court's reasoning was arbitrary, in the absence (“mancanza”) of any confirmation in the trial documents, in its transfer (“traslare”) of the events that Knox had described in one of her statements as happening in Sollecito's flat, during times before, during, and after the murder, to the cottage on Via della Pergola, at a different time. {Without any trial evidence to support this arbitrary transfer of events, it is of no legal explanatory value justifying a verdict of guilt, but does serve as an example of why the Nencini court judgment must be annulled.} (Section 8.1, p. 44)

13. There is no denying that Nencini court exerted interpretive efforts to overcome the unbridgeable investigative gaps and the conspicuous deficits of probative evidence [that is, capable of establishing guilt] by means of clever speculations and suggestive logical arguments, although these were merely dogmatic assertions [statements presented as certain that were, however, not supported by the evidence and thus not legally allowable]. (Section 8.1, p. 45)

14. Furthermore, there are obvious factual errors in describing the evidence which corrupt the reasoning of the Nencini court. For example, the motivation report asserts in one section that Sollecito's DNA, as well as Kercher's, was found in the imperceptible striation on the knife blade. This assertion has no basis in the actual evidence as presented elsewhere in the motivation report. Nowhere in the record of the actual evidence is it written that Sollecito's DNA was found on the knife. Nor can the attribution of the alleged DNA profile from the knife be assigned with certainty to Kercher, because the minuscule amount (low copy number) of the DNA sample did not allow the forensically necessary repeat amplification. (Section 8.1, p. 45 - 46)

3. A Summary of the Reasons for the Acquittal and Annulment without Referral

1. While it is the task of the merits court, and not the CSC, to reconstruct events, it is the legal duty of the CSC to evaluate the legitimacy of the reconstructions if they are challenged. Italian jurisprudence requires that a reconstruction be compatible with common sense and fall within the limits of an acceptable range of evaluation, while Italian law (CPP Article 606.1E) requires that the reconstruction must be compliant with the elements of the evidence. Even if the reconstruction is compliant with the rules of ordinary logic, it must be in agreement with the facts discovered at trial and result from a critical evaluation of the probative evidence that is acquired in accordance with legal procedures. Thus, the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of probative evidence or the inefficiencies of an investigation. Faced with missing, insufficient, or contradictory evidence, a court [judge] should simply accept that situation, and must acquit in accordance with CPP Article 530.2, even if genuinely [personally] convinced of the guilt of the accused. (Section 8.1, p. 45)

2. The errors in judgment and logical inconsistencies, detected and declared, of the Nencini court verdict invalidate it from its foundations; therefore, it deserves to be annulled. These reasons for annulment can be summarized as a failure to be able to formulate [or present] an evidentiary framework that can in reality be considered suitable to support a pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as required by Italian law, CPP Article 533. (Section 9, p. 46)

3. Even considerations of hypotheticals, such as the hypothetical presence of Knox and Sollecito within the cottage at the time of the murder, cannot lead to a change in the aquittal, because of the strength of the absence of evidence of them in the murder room or on Kercher's body indicates that they did not participate in the murder/rape. (Sections 9. 2 - 9.4.3, p. 47 - 53; see especially Section 9.4, p. 48)

4. Because there is no additional extant probative evidence that can be evaluated, there is no way to overcome the acquittal. Therefore, the annulment is without referral, and the verdict is an acquittal on the murder/rape charges. (Section 10, p. 53 -55)

Last edited by Numbers; 26th August 2020 at 10:57 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 27th August 2020, 12:11 AM   #3103
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post

"Even more impartial"


Has she even stopped to consider the logic fail here, and what it might imply
It was the "pulled in personally" part that had me intrigued. I can't think of any legitimate reason that he would be personally levered at that stage of 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 27th August 2020, 04:16 AM   #3104
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Strangely (and don't hate me for it) I give this one to Comodi. She had never been singled out as Mignini had been. (Don't get me wrong, for the most part he was singled out because of his wild theories and dogged refusal to admit mistakes. He was singled out because he presided over not allowing RS and AK to have adequate counsel at interrogation, or, at least, he sould have directed the police to follow the law....) But he **was** singled out.

With that said, Comodi could be referring to Mignini losing his edge over it all. I mean, acc. to Barbie Nadeau Comodi was able to push back against Mignini, in the sense that Nadeau reported that Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini had gone to trial with the "Satanic rite" theory.

Comodi could have been referring to watching as Mignini allowed himself to be pushed around by outside forces, rather than just prosecuting the case using known- and knowable-facts. Indeed, by the time of the Hellmann trial, Mignini was speculating that instead of being physically involved in the murder, that Knox had been directing the boys from out in the hallway.

Comodi had a ring-side seat into how both the investigation and initial prosecution became "amnesiac" and incapable of allowing a court to convict (as per the finding of the 2015 Marasca-Bruno court). She was a willing participant in the prosecution, contributed her own outlandish stuff.....

...... but when she compared herself to Mignini, she would simply see herself as more impartial and less invested. I don't think that's necessarily a "logic fail". It may be implying something as simple as, "If I'd been the lead prosecutor, there never would have been an annulment of a conviction."

No - I'm pointing to the fact that it's logically impossible to be "even more impartial" than another person.

One is either impartial or one is partial. One cannot be "partially impartial". It's a variation on the old "you can't be half-pregnant" truism.


ETA: with respect to this, and with reference to your subsequent post on this issue, one logically-correct possibility was that Comodi was in fact saying that she was impartial and Mignini was not......

Last edited by LondonJohn; 27th August 2020 at 04:21 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 27th August 2020, 04:17 AM   #3105
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
It was the "pulled in personally" part that had me intrigued. I can't think of any legitimate reason that he would be personally levered at that stage of the case.

Hoots

Well yes. She seems to be implying there that Mignini's judgement or POV was somehow adversely affected by the fact that he had no choice but to be the PM on this case.......
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 Back to Top
Old 27th August 2020, 04:59 AM   #3106
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No - I'm pointing to the fact that it's logically impossible to be "even more impartial" than another person.

One is either impartial or one is partial. One cannot be "partially impartial". It's a variation on the old "you can't be half-pregnant" truism.


ETA: with respect to this, and with reference to your subsequent post on this issue, one logically-correct possibility was that Comodi was in fact saying that she was impartial and Mignini was not......
I would agree that "impartiality" is either total or lacking (not present). When it is not present, the degree of "partiality" may vary.

Certainly, the Italian courts, including those of Judges Massei, Nencini, and Chieffi, may have claimed "impartiality" but were clearly "partial" to the prosecution.

One striking example of this partiality was when the Massei court allowed Mignini to use the transcript of Knox's statements to prosecute her for calunnia against the police, but ignored the defense request to use the transcript to have an independent prosecutor investigate whether there had been police misconduct.

Two other examples of partiality:

1. The Chieffi CSC panel, in its motivation report, suggested that the Hellmann judgment was defective in not considering the weight of Knox's (coerced) interrogation statements against Lumumba as evidence against her for the murder/rape case, although the Gemelli CSC panel had concluded, in what should have been a final legal interpretation, that those statements by Knox could not be used against her according to Italian law (and elsewhere, it was claimed that the statements could be used against her for calunnia on the basis of other Italian jurisprudence).

2. The Nencini court actually did use her interrogation statements against her for the murder/rape case, contrary to the Gemelli CSC panel final judgment.

These and other instances of partiality in favor of the prosecution in the Italian courts in this case are examples demonstrating that the courts maintained only a pretense of impartiality, contrary to the provision of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution that the judge shall act impartially as a third party.

Last edited by Numbers; 27th August 2020 at 05:10 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 27th August 2020, 06:28 AM   #3107
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No - I'm pointing to the fact that it's logically impossible to be "even more impartial" than another person.

One is either impartial or one is partial. One cannot be "partially impartial". It's a variation on the old "you can't be half-pregnant" truism.


ETA: with respect to this, and with reference to your subsequent post on this issue, one logically-correct possibility was that Comodi was in fact saying that she was impartial and Mignini was not......
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I would agree that "impartiality" is either total or lacking (not present). When it is not present, the degree of "partiality" may vary.

Certainly, the Italian courts, including those of Judges Massei, Nencini, and Chieffi, may have claimed "impartiality" but were clearly "partial" to the prosecution.

One striking example of this partiality was when the Massei court allowed Mignini to use the transcript of Knox's statements to prosecute her for calunnia against the police, but ignored the defense request to use the transcript to have an independent prosecutor investigate whether there had been police misconduct.

Two other examples of partiality:

1. The Chieffi CSC panel, in its motivation report, suggested that the Hellmann judgment was defective in not considering the weight of Knox's (coerced) interrogation statements against Lumumba as evidence against her for the murder/rape case, although the Gemelli CSC panel had concluded, in what should have been a final legal interpretation, that those statements by Knox could not be used against her according to Italian law (and elsewhere, it was claimed that the statements could be used against her for calunnia on the basis of other Italian jurisprudence).

2. The Nencini court actually did use her interrogation statements against her for the murder/rape case, contrary to the Gemelli CSC panel final judgment.

These and other instances of partiality in favor of the prosecution in the Italian courts in this case are examples demonstrating that the courts maintained only a pretense of impartiality, contrary to the provision of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution that the judge shall act impartially as a third party.
One more point on this.

Does it make sense to even claim that a prosecutor is "impartial", since the prosecutor must present a case against the accused, and, under Italian law, must lead the police team in their investigation of the crime and potential suspects?

However, CPP Article 358 states: The Public Prosecutor shall carry out any activity necessary for the purposes referred to in Article 326 {meaning, leading the investigation of the crime by the police) and shall also carry out ascertainments on the facts and circumstances in favor of the suspected person.

Can anyone point out specific ascertainments in favor of Knox or Sollecito originating with Mignini, Comodi, or any other prosecutor?

Can anyone find any examples of unfairness by one of the prosecutors, for example, when Comodi, in helping to deny the DNA raw data to the defense, stated (in essence) that it was for the prosecution to decide what data the defense should receive (contrary to the provisions of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, nor in agreement with any CPP article, and contrary to ECHR case-law)?
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 27th August 2020, 06:33 AM   #3108
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No - I'm pointing to the fact that it's logically impossible to be "even more impartial" than another person.

One is either impartial or one is partial. One cannot be "partially impartial". It's a variation on the old "you can't be half-pregnant" truism.


ETA: with respect to this, and with reference to your subsequent post on this issue, one logically-correct possibility was that Comodi was in fact saying that she was impartial and Mignini was not......
...... yet the final panel of Cassazione took a differing, and more corrett legal view.

Everyone is partial. It's what it is to be human. There is no such thing as impartiality. It's a conceit to think so.

So, in addressing that, the M/B report wrote that judges are not free to decide cases on their personal understanding of what logic is, indeed they may even believe the defendant is guilty.

But it is the judge's job to set all that aside and apply the law. The issue is not to try to purge oneself of partiality. The law is supposed to replace partiality, by setting standards which must be met to safely convict.

In the RS/AK trials, when viewing evidence favourable to the defence beside evidence favourable to the prosecution (cf. M/B 9.2 and 9.4), none of it places the defendants in the murderroom.

Once that is established, the judge must apply the law, rather than bend it to meet what one is partial to.

Indeed, this, then, reflects a more colloquial definition of partiality. There's no such thing as personal impartiality, but the task of applying the law allows one to overcome it. Allowing that standard to win the day makes one colloquially "impartial".
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 27th August 2020 at 06:34 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 Back to Top
Old 27th August 2020, 07:28 AM   #3109
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
...... yet the final panel of Cassazione took a differing, and more corrett legal view.

Everyone is partial. It's what it is to be human. There is no such thing as impartiality. It's a conceit to think so.

So, in addressing that, the M/B report wrote that judges are not free to decide cases on their personal understanding of what logic is, indeed they may even believe the defendant is guilty.

But it is the judge's job to set all that aside and apply the law.
The issue is not to try to purge oneself of partiality. The law is supposed to replace partiality, by setting standards which must be met to safely convict.

In the RS/AK trials, when viewing evidence favourable to the defence beside evidence favourable to the prosecution (cf. M/B 9.2 and 9.4), none of it places the defendants in the murderroom.

Once that is established, the judge must apply the law, rather than bend it to meet what one is partial to.

Indeed, this, then, reflects a more colloquial definition of partiality. There's no such thing as personal impartiality, but the task of applying the law allows one to overcome it. Allowing that standard to win the day makes one colloquially "impartial".
I think here you are playing with words.

Perhaps you may recall that "psychology" was once defined (as I was told in a psychology class some decades ago) to be the "science of the mind". Then it was pointed out that there was no certain way to understand what was happening in a person's (or an animal's) "mind" (assuming one could satisfactorily define what "mind" was).

So the definition of "psychology" was changed to be the "science of behavior" since behavior can be observed and measured.

I suggest that "partiality" or "impartiality" is always a quality that is inferred from behavior.

Just as, for example, one can balance a meter stick (uniform in weight along each segment of its length), at one middle point, the center of mass (or, if one prefers, of weight), so the "impartial" court or judge hears both sides and without expressing in behavior (judgment) an unfair preference for one side. An unfair judgment would be one, for example, that is illogical, arbitrary, or not based on the known credible and legally admissible evidence.
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 27th August 2020, 09:47 AM   #3110
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I think here you are playing with words.

Perhaps you may recall that "psychology" was once defined (as I was told in a psychology class some decades ago) to be the "science of the mind". Then it was pointed out that there was no certain way to understand what was happening in a person's (or an animal's) "mind" (assuming one could satisfactorily define what "mind" was).

So the definition of "psychology" was changed to be the "science of behavior" since behavior can be observed and measured.

I suggest that "partiality" or "impartiality" is always a quality that is inferred from behavior.
Before getting into the second part of your post, psychology (as it exists today as an academic discipline) was **not** once "x", but is now "y". Both those definitions define competing schools of thought alive and well in a vigourous, internal debate. You've simply taken a side in the competition.

My first degree is in psychology. The degree-granting institution I was at had (during my studies) its faculty of psychology transition from a bias towards "science of the mind" to (by the time I graduated) a bias towards "science of (measurable) behaviour." Those of us who adhered to the "science of the mind" view looked on in horror as the dean of the faculty was so successful in this transition, that he eventually became president of the university.

But getting back to Comodi's words, it's her definition of "impartial" that counts. She's the one applying it (or its lack) to Mignini, her colleague. If anyone can find examples she might have used to buttress her remark, then that would go a long way to clearing this up - and be relevant to the thread.

I'd love to be able to measure it (!) but my guess is that her remarks on observing Mignini's lack of impartiality referred to the way he allowed the Narducci case, as well as his run in with Doug Preston to interfere with whatever good sense Mignini might have at one time had.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 27th August 2020 at 09:49 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 Back to Top
Old 27th August 2020, 11:22 AM   #3111
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Before getting into the second part of your post, psychology (as it exists today as an academic discipline) was **not** once "x", but is now "y". Both those definitions define competing schools of thought alive and well in a vigourous, internal debate. You've simply taken a side in the competition.

My first degree is in psychology. The degree-granting institution I was at had (during my studies) its faculty of psychology transition from a bias towards "science of the mind" to (by the time I graduated) a bias towards "science of (measurable) behaviour." Those of us who adhered to the "science of the mind" view looked on in horror as the dean of the faculty was so successful in this transition, that he eventually became president of the university.

But getting back to Comodi's words, it's her definition of "impartial" that counts. She's the one applying it (or its lack) to Mignini, her colleague. If anyone can find examples she might have used to buttress her remark, then that would go a long way to clearing this up - and be relevant to the thread.

I'd love to be able to measure it (!) but my guess is that her remarks on observing Mignini's lack of impartiality referred to the way he allowed the Narducci case, as well as his run in with Doug Preston to interfere with whatever good sense Mignini might have at one time had.
1. Not to get side-tracked on a tangent, but I will agree (sorta) with your statement. I looked up psychology in Wikipedia, and it had "psychology is the science of mind and behavior". And, of course, Wikipedia is always right.

(I was not advocating for a strict behaviorist view, but implying that what we know scientifically and objectively, rather than philosophically, of "mind" - with the possible exception of studies of the brain using neuroscience methods - is based on inferences from behavior, including communications.)

2. I don't believe that prosecutors in Italy are legally obligated to be "impartial", but they are, at least in theory, obligated by CPP Article 358. There are also legal obligations on them and other authorities against calunnia, filing false official documents, using threats or violence to obtain testimony and so on; just a few years ago, it was made a criminal offense for an authority to commit fraud in a criminal proceeding.

All this relates to the behavior of the prosecutor or other authority.

Article 111 of the Italian Constitution* states in part:

Quote:
La giurisdizione si attua mediante il giusto pro-cesso regolato dalla legge.

Ogni processo si svolge nel contraddittorio trale parti, in condizioni di parita`, davanti a giudice terzo e imparziale.

La legge ne assicura la ragionevole durata.
Google translation with a bit of help:

Quote:
Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.

Each trial takes place in an adversarial manner [by cross-examination] between the parties, in conditions of equality {of the two parties}, before an impartial judge [court] acting as a third party.

The law ensures the reasonable duration of a trial.
So I'm not going to guess what Comodi meant by "more impartial", except to suggest that in honest (non-political and non-diplomatic) English it could be "Mignini was even more (or, excessively) partial and nonsensical".

* Source: https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...stituzione.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 27th August 2020 at 11:28 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 27th August 2020, 01:21 PM   #3112
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. Not to get side-tracked on a tangent, but I will agree (sorta) with your statement. I looked up psychology in Wikipedia, and it had "psychology is the science of mind and behavior". And, of course, Wikipedia is always right.
Fortunately, I user-editted the entry before you got there!
__________________
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 27th August 2020, 01:26 PM   #3113
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There certainly can be an issue of a Council of Europe country, such as Italy, not responding in timely fashion to the Committee of Ministers procedures following a final judgment of the ECHR.

The first remedy that the Committee of Ministers (as carried out by their Deputies) has if there is an excessive delay in a country providing an action plan or action report is to place the case on "Enhanced Procedure" review, rather than "Standard Procedure" review.

There have been a few countries that have not apparently followed the CoE - CoM procedures in good faith. This has been a difficult issue for the CoE. For one country (Azerbaijan, not Italy), the CoM brought a case against the country before the ECHR for systematically failing to carry out the final judgments of the ECHR.

Italy has, to my knowledge, consistently attempted to follow the final judgments of the ECHR. It has not apparently consistently done so as promptly as may be ideal. Part of the reason for that may be the imperfect efficiency of the Italian government.

Thus, one should consider the time required for Italy to close an ECHR case after a final judgment, as well as the time required for Italy to produce a required initial action plan following a final judgment.

I have looked at the time required for 16 recent final judgment ECHR leading cases to be closed by the CoM. The shortest time was 1 year and 3 months; the longest was 14 years and 0 months. Ten of the cases took less than 6 years to be closed, and 5 of those cases took 3 years or less to be closed.

In order to close a case, the CoM requires not only individual measures, but also any required general measures, such as new or reformed laws, law enforcement practices, or administrative measures to be instituted.

I have looked at all 56 pending leading cases against Italy in an attempt to learn how long Italy usually takes to provide the CoM with an action plan.

I found that there is a first group of 12 cases, the oldest with final judgment date of 01 May 2018, that have yet to have action plans. The case Knox v. Italy (final judgment 24 June 2019) is among those cases.

Thus, it may take Italy 1 year 7 months or more to generate an action plan following a final judgment.

Among the remaining 44 cases, all have had adequate action plans submitted, except apparently for two cases.

The most recent pending leading case to have an action plan is Cipolleta v. Italy 38259/09, with final judgment 11 April 2018.

The two older cases still apparently awaiting action plans are Lorefice v. Italy 63446/13, final judgment 29 September 2017, and De Tommaso v. Italy 433951/09, final judgment 23 February 2017. However, there were communications to the CoM from Italy for both of these cases, on 20 December 2017 and 31 October 2017, respectively. Either one or both of these communications were not considered adequate action plans by the CoM, or one or both were erroneously recorded in the HUDOC EXEC database as awaiting an action plan.
We are (or at least I am) awaiting some progress in the resolution by Italy of the case Knox v. Italy, where the execution of the final judgment of the ECHR is under supervision by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. The last news was the communication from Italy on 10 January 2020, acknowledging the judgment against Italy but not accepted by the Department for the Execution of Judgments - CoM as being an Action Plan.

However, looking through other cases before the CoM, I see that there has been some movement in the resolution of the case Lorefice v. Italy. Examination of that case's status may be suggestive of timelines and the measures - Individual and General - that may be relevant for the resolution of Knox v. Italy.

Here's an English translation (from the French by Google Translate with my help) of the CoM Description of the Case and Status of Execution:

Quote:
Description of the case:

This case concerns the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant accused of extortion, possession of explosives, damage to the property of others, connivance and attempted theft. In particular, the European Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the applicant's initial acquittal was overturned on appeal without there having been a new hearing of the prosecution witnesses.

Status of execution:

An action report was submitted on June 25, 2020. It is currently being evaluated. Previously, on December 20, 2017, the authorities had transmitted preliminary information on individual and general measures in this case (DH-DD (2018) 36).

The information received can be summarized as follows:

Individual measures:

Following the request for a revision trial proposed by the applicant, on October 3, 2017 the Palermo Court of Appeal suspended the execution of its judgment of February 15, 2012 and ordered the applicant's immediate release {from prison}.

On October 26, 2017, the Caltanissetta Court of Appeal, the court before which the revision trial is pending, admitted the evidence requested by the applicant’s lawyer. The Court ordered the renewal of the investigation and the hearing of the witnesses {trial evidentiary hearing} required by the defense (hearing of 1 February 2018), in accordance with the principles affirmed by the European Court.

General measures:

The Italian authorities recall that following the adoption of the law of 23 June 2017, no. 103, article 603 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing”) envisages “that in the event of an appeal by the public prosecutor's office against an acquittal judgment for reasons relating to the assessment of oral evidence, the judge orders the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing”.
The proposed final Action Report of 25 June 2020, in English, does not provide the outcome, in any, of the revision trial. It does expand on the General Measures:

Quote:
As noted by the European Court, the issue raised by this judgment has been already solved by the consolidated jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation which now affirmed the necessity for the Appeal Court to rehear the witnesses in appeal proceedings initiated by the public prosecutor against a first instance judgment of acquittal (see ex multis Court of Cassation sitting as a full court, judgment No. 18620/2017, Court of Cassation sitting as a full court judgment No. 27620/2016).

In addition to this, an important legislative intervention (Law No. 103 of 23 June 2017) amended the relevant provision of the criminal procedure code (Article 630 - "renewal of the hearing ") which now stipulates that in case the Prosecution appeals against a judgment of acquittal for reasons relating to
the evaluation of the oral evidence, the judge must proceed with a direct assessment of the evidence.

Moreover, the judgment was translated into Italian and published on the websites of the Court of Cassation and the Ministry of Justice. It has been the subject of numerous debates in the academic and judiciary training
So, in the Lorefice v. Italy case, it took Italy about 2.5 years from its first communication to the CoM to decide that it had closed the execution of the case. We will see in the coming months whether the CoM agrees to close the case.

Of (moot) relevance to the Knox - Sollecito case, note that the ECHR is quite fussy about a judgment convicting someone after an acquittal, when essentially the same evidence is used with a different interpretation. This is especially the case when the testimony in not reheard by the convicting court. The ECHR case-law is that this is a violation of the Convention under Article 6.1.
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 27th August 2020, 02:33 PM   #3114
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Fortunately, I user-editted the entry before you got there!
Bill, you know that's really frustrating! I'll keep checking periodically to see if it changes!
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 27th August 2020, 03:28 PM   #3115
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Bill, you know that's really frustrating! I'll keep checking periodically to see if it changes!
There are stats for that. On more common subjects, subjects which are referred to a lot - a vandalism of an entry lasts on average something like 30 seconds......

..... before a fact-nerd repairs the vandalism. Stats are something like for every vandal, there are 75 fact-nerds who are obsessive about accuracy.

By 2010 "The murder of Meredith Kercher" became one of the most viewed entries on Wikipedia. The comments pages behind it set records for verbosity. Not only did edit-wars break out on the main page, but even on the "talk" page.

By 2010, linking to NPOV sources like the New York Times were deemed not-"neutral" if it was an article exploring AK's innocence. Yet British tabloids were linked to with abandon.

As mentioned here, no less than Jimbo Wales himself interceded. One of the most frequent user-editors was outed as a prolific guilter at PMF website. He'd edited with impunity at the MoMK entry.

When he was deemed non-neutral, as well as his sources, he appealed. His appeal occupied 35 talk-pages of back and forth, until he, himself, was banned. He left calling Jimbo Wales a nazi, thought-police, etc.

Many, myself included, speculated that he surfaced as "Edward McCall" who originated the fake-wiki. That wiki started soon after the guy's banning from Wikipedia.

But I digress.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 27th August 2020 at 03:29 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
Old 29th August 2020, 12:04 PM   #3116
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Amanda in good form in this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy9rl-Md-PE

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 29th August 2020, 03:23 PM   #3117
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Very interesting interview and especially the part that she has been in contact with Mignini and that she's trying to understand him. She's spot on about his fascination with the French detective Maigret and the Holmesian skill (?) of being able to solve a crime from a seemingly insignificant piece of information. That sets up a huge bias that can lead to placing significance on things that really have none. We saw this in Mignini tying the fact only left shoe prints were found to a possible masonic connection when there was none and the date of Nov. 1 to a satanic connection.

Another interesting thing thing she said was that she's a very physical person...that she finds comfort in touch, holding hands, hugs, etc. and that why in the days after the murder she would sit in Raffaele's lap, etc. That is how she found comfort and felt safe. Of course, we can expect snarky remarks from those who will find fault with that.
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 31st August 2020, 08:53 AM   #3118
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Very interesting interview and especially the part that she has been in contact with Mignini and that she's trying to understand him. She's spot on about his fascination with the French detective Maigret and the Holmesian skill (?) of being able to solve a crime from a seemingly insignificant piece of information. That sets up a huge bias that can lead to placing significance on things that really have none. We saw this in Mignini tying the fact only left shoe prints were found to a possible masonic connection when there was none and the date of Nov. 1 to a satanic connection.

Another interesting thing thing she said was that she's a very physical person...that she finds comfort in touch, holding hands, hugs, etc. and that why in the days after the murder she would sit in Raffaele's lap, etc. That is how she found comfort and felt safe. Of course, we can expect snarky remarks from those who will find fault with that.
It would be all to easy just to react to those who have persecuted her, so I agree that trying to understand their reasoning in concluding her guilt is the right thing to do; however, I don't believe that she'll find a heart of gold with Mignini, he did't get where he is by being "Mr Nice Guy". He knows all the dirty tricks in the book, just ask Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUOIK2XGikM&t=46s

And the visual glitches in the video were no doubt Amanda trying to avoid shape-shifting into her default lizard mode.

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 31st August 2020, 09:28 AM   #3119
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
It would be all to easy just to react to those who have persecuted her, so I agree that trying to understand their reasoning in concluding her guilt is the right thing to do; however, I don't believe that she'll find a heart of gold with Mignini, he did't get where he is by being "Mr Nice Guy". He knows all the dirty tricks in the book, just ask Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUOIK2XGikM&t=46s

And the visual glitches in the video were no doubt Amanda trying to avoid shape-shifting into her default lizard mode.

Hoots
Of course he does; one being the "They're just 'witnesses informed of the facts, not suspects' so they didn't have to have lawyers" trick. That one didn't work out as he'd planned.
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 31st August 2020, 11:24 AM   #3120
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
You guys really need to watch this one. It is the Behaviour Panel - expert body language profilers, statement analysts and a criminal interrogator.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
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
Closed Thread

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 10:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.