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 6th September 2020, 05:25 AM   #3241
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Mark Bowden on Amanda Knox' theory of PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN.

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
Thanks for posting that. I've been wondering what you were banging on about. It's a big nothing burger.
whoanellie 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 6th September 2020, 06:54 AM   #3242
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
I've been looking at the Boninsegna MR again that appears to come out pretty heavily in Amanda's favour. Not only do they highlight the misconduct of the investigators on multiple occasions but they say:

"This Court therefore finds that Amanda Knox had indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator only because, at that moment, it appeared to be the quickest and easiest way to put an end to the situation in which she found herself, her interrogators having insisted on an explanation of the message she sent to him."

Obviously, the calunnia against Lumumba is set in stone, which is why it went to the ECHR but they deal with the same scenario of events. It's got me wondering if Amanda would have been found guilty of slandering Lumumba by Boninsegna's evaluation of the events.

Hoots
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It also bears repeating that any and all Italian court reasonings which were written between Knox's first SC affirmation of her conviction for criminal slander in 2011 and the ECHR judgement in 2019 - including this Boninsegna reasoning - were effectively bound by a requirement to incorporate the criminal slander verdict and its reasoning into their own reasonings.

So no court during that period, for example, could possibly have issued a reasoning which either stated or implied that Knox's criminal slander conviction was unsafe in any way.
1. The quote from the Boninsegna court motivation report may be found on page 26, near the end of the page, of the translation*. It is a part of a long quotation from the Hellmann court motivation report presente by the Boninsegna court. Recall that it was the Hellmann court that provisionally convicted Knox of "simple" calunnia against Lumumba; this conviction was affirmed (made "final" except for a possible revision trial) by the Chieffi CSC panel.

2. The Boninsegna court was hearing a separate case, the allegation that Knox had committed aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini by her testimony during the Massei court trial and in subsequent appeals. It was not a revision trial and had no authority under Italian law to reverse the conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba. It did, however, indicate that there was no proof that Knox had committed calunnia against the police and Mignini, because there was no proof that the known circumstances of the interrogation were different than her allegations about them, and because the known circumstances of the interrogation had violated her defense rights under Italian law and Constitution**. It was, of course, also known that Knox had no defense lawyer during the interrogation (see the 2008 Gemelli CSC panel decision) and CPP Articles 63 and 64 had thus been violated. Thus, the Boninsegna court MR provides indications that the calunnia against Lumumba conviction was obtained "unfairly" in violation of Italian law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

* http://www.amandaknoxcase.net/

** These Boninsegna court statements on the violations appear in a somewhat cautious style.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th September 2020 at 06:55 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 6th September 2020, 07:18 AM   #3243
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It also bears repeating that any and all Italian court reasonings which were written between Knox's first SC affirmation of her conviction for criminal slander in 2011 and the ECHR judgement in 2019 - including this Boninsegna reasoning - were effectively bound by a requirement to incorporate the criminal slander verdict and its reasoning into their own reasonings.

So no court during that period, for example, could possibly have issued a reasoning which either stated or implied that Knox's criminal slander conviction was unsafe in any way.
It is interesting that Boninsegna is prepared to highlight the gross misconduct of Donnino that (correct me if I'm wrong) the other courts didn't consider regarding the calunnia conviction.

"...and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements;..."

As I see it there is a violation of article 188 that states:

"1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned."

So it seems to me that while Boninsegna does not and cannot re-evaluate the existing calunnia, it addresses the same issues and comes up with a completely different perspective and undermines the integrity of the calunnia conviction, even though it can't legally affect it.

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

Last edited by TomG; 6th September 2020 at 07:21 AM. Reason: Forgot to hoot...hoots
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 6th September 2020, 08:02 AM   #3244
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It also bears repeating that any and all Italian court reasonings which were written between Knox's first SC affirmation of her conviction for criminal slander in 2011 and the ECHR judgement in 2019 - including this Boninsegna reasoning - were effectively bound by a requirement to incorporate the criminal slander verdict and its reasoning into their own reasonings.

So no court during that period, for example, could possibly have issued a reasoning which either stated or implied that Knox's criminal slander conviction was unsafe in any way.
Luca Cheli put it this way in his Sept 22, 2015, analysis of the Marasca-Bruno Report. Whereas Cheli found much in the M/B report which would send shockwaves through the legal system, he also said that even the M/B report hid some of the other stuff "in the shadows". There are, apparently, still some sacred cows that even the most progressive judge-panel has to bow to.

Full transparency, Cheli has no particular legal expertise, but is a native Italian also fluent in English. He had commented at length on the Kercher murder case over the years, and wrote the following before moving on to other things.....

https://www.groundreport.com/knox-an...o-final-words/
Quote:
There is a ghost haunting the solemn corridors of the palace of the Court of Cassation in Rome. It is called, in Italian, “conflitto in giudicato” and it has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.

A “conflitto in giudicato” of the worst type happens when two definitive rulings, that is two different rulings issued by Cassation’s panels to close a case, conflict about the verdict on some element of the same case.

Throughout the years, Cassation judges have always tried to dispel such a haunting presence by trying to ensure that all of their rulings were “aligned” and coherent, as much as possible.

Hence it isn’t particularly surprising that Marasca agrees with Guede’s ruling about the presence of multiple attackers and the burglary being staged: ruling otherwise would have caused a major “conflitto in giudicato”, and probably that was also one of the causes of the annulment of the first acquittal.

There is however a difference: while Marasca writes very few words, if any, in upholding the concept of a staged burglary, so much so that one derives it was deemed staged more from the verdict than from the ruling, he expands quite a bit on the reasons for supporting the multiple attackers theory.

Some of those reasons are the usual ones and have been debated for years, and I will not discuss them further now (lack of defensive wounds, just to quote one), but while this could just be a mechanical rehashing of corny arguments, there is also something new that makes me think the judges of the panel, or at least a majority of them, really believed in what they were writing.

Specifically they really believed that Meredith Kercher’s killer was much more “criminally skilled” than petty thief Rudy Guede and, all the more so, than two nerdy students.
At first blush, it is strange to hear a native Italian criticize his own legal system for a bi-level meaning to rulings. At one level, judges write what they believe happened. At a parallel level, judges write what they REALLY believe happened.

People who have followed this case, as well as extending back into Mignini's persecution of Narducci et al., are familiar with Italian "dietrology". It's somewhat troubling that the Italian legal system permits "dietrology" at a limited level, distinguishing between things to be believed, from things which are REALLY to be believed.

AK and RS are going about their lives these days in a modified normal fashion. How many others are in Italian prisons because judges only wrote what they believed, rather than what they REALLY believed?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 6th September 2020 at 08:03 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 6th September 2020, 08:45 AM   #3245
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
It is interesting that Boninsegna is prepared to highlight the gross misconduct of Donnino that (correct me if I'm wrong) the other courts didn't consider regarding the calunnia conviction.

"...and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements;..."

As I see it there is a violation of article 188 that states:

"1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned."

So it seems to me that while Boninsegna does not and cannot re-evaluate the existing calunnia, it addresses the same issues and comes up with a completely different perspective and undermines the integrity of the calunnia conviction, even though it can't legally affect it.

Hoots
In fact, the excerpt quoted in your post originates with the Hellmann court motivation report, the relevant parts of which are quoted in the Boninsegna court motivation report.

The Hellmann court did not appear to use specifically the many abuses or errors committed by the authorities during the interrogation in reaching its judgment of provisional conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba.

The Hellmann court may have felt compelled by Italian jurisprudence (mentioned in the Italian government response in the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy) to convict on calunnia, or perhaps it was attempting to give the prosecution a partial victory in hopes of gaining CSC approval of the provisional acquittal on the murder/rape charges, or perhaps it was protecting the police and Mignini from possible prosecution for the crimes implied in their behavior during the interrogation (assuming Knox's allegations were true), or perhaps it was setting up a case for the ECHR on the basis that the Italian judiciary were unable to fairly deal with Knox's complaints of police mistreatment during the interrogation.
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 6th September 2020, 09:25 AM   #3246
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Luca Cheli put it this way in his Sept 22, 2015, analysis of the Marasca-Bruno Report. Whereas Cheli found much in the M/B report which would send shockwaves through the legal system, he also said that even the M/B report hid some of the other stuff "in the shadows". There are, apparently, still some sacred cows that even the most progressive judge-panel has to bow to.

Full transparency, Cheli has no particular legal expertise, but is a native Italian also fluent in English. He had commented at length on the Kercher murder case over the years, and wrote the following before moving on to other things.....

https://www.groundreport.com/knox-an...o-final-words/
At first blush, it is strange to hear a native Italian criticize his own legal system for a bi-level meaning to rulings. At one level, judges write what they believe happened. At a parallel level, judges write what they REALLY believe happened.

People who have followed this case, as well as extending back into Mignini's persecution of Narducci et al., are familiar with Italian "dietrology". It's somewhat troubling that the Italian legal system permits "dietrology" at a limited level, distinguishing between things to be believed, from things which are REALLY to be believed.

AK and RS are going about their lives these days in a modified normal fashion. How many others are in Italian prisons because judges only wrote what they believed, rather than what they REALLY believed?


The thing is, the Marasca SC panel would have opened a problematic can of worms if anything in its reasoning had contradicted the "settled" verdict (and supporting reasoning). After all, had it done so, it would have created a legal dissonance which could only then be resolved by virtue of a revision of one or both of the reasonings.

Also (IIRC) the convention in Italian justice, when such a contradiction occurs, is for the most recent judgement/reasoning to take precedence over the prior judgement reasoning. So in this case, had the Marasca reasoning pointed to Knox's non-guilt wrt the criminal slander, then the original criminal slander conviction/reasoning would require revision to bring it into harmony with the Marasca reasoning.

All in all, it was clearly far less problematic - in many different respects - for the Marasca SC to steer well clear of the Knox criminal slander issue as much as it could, and to mirror the extant conviction where it had to make a referance. As numbers has pointed out though, the acquittals/annulments could safely (and logically) be done without ever needing to consider the central question of Knox's guilt wrt the criminal slander.

Incidentally, this very factor is a major reason why the criminal slander charge should never have been tried in conjunction with the murder-related charges: it should never have been viewed as being "in continuance with" (linked to) the actions around the murder itself. And that was Massei's first mistake - no doubt, under *guidance* from Mignini........
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 6th September 2020, 09:40 AM   #3247
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
In fact, the excerpt quoted in your post originates with the Hellmann court motivation report, the relevant parts of which are quoted in the Boninsegna court motivation report.

The Hellmann court did not appear to use specifically the many abuses or errors committed by the authorities during the interrogation in reaching its judgment of provisional conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba.

The Hellmann court may have felt compelled by Italian jurisprudence (mentioned in the Italian government response in the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy) to convict on calunnia, or perhaps it was attempting to give the prosecution a partial victory in hopes of gaining CSC approval of the provisional acquittal on the murder/rape charges, or perhaps it was protecting the police and Mignini from possible prosecution for the crimes implied in their behavior during the interrogation (assuming Knox's allegations were true), or perhaps it was setting up a case for the ECHR on the basis that the Italian judiciary were unable to fairly deal with Knox's complaints of police mistreatment during the interrogation.
Cheers! I just think that it's ironic that the two courts could come to such differing conclusions that are now set in stone Each referring to the same events. It seems to me that there is a sort of conflict in judgement in that respect. I don't see how Boninsegna's considerations would have resulted in a slander conviction.

Can anyone tell me the relevant CPP article that deals with the calunnia. I can't find anything so far?

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 6th September 2020, 11:05 AM   #3248
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Cheers! I just think that it's ironic that the two courts could come to such differing conclusions that are now set in stone Each referring to the same events. It seems to me that there is a sort of conflict in judgement in that respect. I don't see how Boninsegna's considerations would have resulted in a slander conviction.

Can anyone tell me the relevant CPP article that deals with the calunnia. I can't find anything so far?

Hoots
The Italian laws are codified into several different "codes" based on their topic, including those relevant here: criminal procedural law (Codice di procedura penale, CPP) and criminal law - that is, a list of crimes and their penalties (Codice penale, CP).

Calunnia is defined as a crime, so it is included, along with other crimes, for example, murder and fraud by the authorities in an investigation or trial, in the CP. It does not belong in the CPP, which has laws specifying procedures, for example, the warnings by the police or prosecutor that must be given to a suspect under interrogation and the procedures to be followed in a first-instance trial, in an appeal trial, and in an appeal to the CSC.

I have previously posted the text of the crime of calunnia in Italian and in English translation. There are several online sources that have the CP and the CPP (as well as the other codes) in Italian. Here's a list of a few of those sources, listing the CP page (in most cases there's a link to the CPP from that page); the last source is from the "Normattiva" ("Standards of Law") of the CSC:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/co.../codice-penale

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/

https://www.studiocataldi.it/codicep...dicepenale.pdf

https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2...930-10-19;1398

Here's the Italian text of the law against calunnia, from the 1st source; the footnotes are explanations of changes to the law:

Quote:
Art. 368.
Calunnia.

Chiunque, con denunzia, querela, richiesta o istanza, anche se anonima o sotto falso nome, diretta all'autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne o alla Corte penale internazionale, incolpa di un reato taluno che egli sa innocente, ovvero simula a carico di lui le tracce di un reato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni (1).

La pena è aumentata se s'incolpa taluno di un reato pel quale la legge stabilisce la pena della reclusione superiore nel massimo a dieci anni, o un'altra pena più grave.

La reclusione è da quattro a dodici anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla reclusione superiore a cinque anni; è da sei a venti anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna all'ergastolo; e si applica la pena dell'ergastolo, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla pena di morte (2).

(1) Comma così modificato dall’art. 10, comma 3, L. 20 dicembre 2012, n. 237. Il testo precedentemente in vigore era il seguente: “Chiunque, con denunzia, querela, richiesta o istanza, anche se anonima o sotto falso nome, diretta all'autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne, incolpa di un reato taluno che egli sa innocente, ovvero simula a carico di lui le tracce di un reato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.”.
(2) La pena di morte per i delitti previsti dal codice penale è stata abolita dall'art. 1 del D.Lgs.Lgt. 10 agosto 1944, n. 224.
Here's a translation (Google with my help using Collins Reverso & Gialuz et al.):

Art. 368.
False Accusation.

Anyone who, with a report, complaint, request or application, even if anonymous or under a false name, directs to the judicial authority {police, prosecutor, or judge} or to another authority that is obliged to report to it or to the International Criminal Court, accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against a person he knows to be innocent, is punished with imprisonment of from two to six years (1).

The penalty is increased if someone is accused of an offense for which the law establishes the penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty.

The imprisonment is from four to twelve years, if the act of the alleged crime results in a prison sentence of more than five years; is from six to twenty years, if the act results in a life sentence; and the penalty of life imprisonment is applied, if the act results in a death penalty (2).

(1) Paragraph thus amended by art. 10, paragraph 3, Law 20 December 2012, n. 237. The text previously in force was the following: "Anyone who, with a report, complaint, request or application, even if anonymous or under a false name, addressed to the judicial authority or to another authority which is obliged to report to it, accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against the person he knows to be innocent, is punished with imprisonment of from two to six years. ".

(2) The death penalty for crimes provided for by the penal code has been abolished by art. 1 of the Legislative Decree 10 August 1944, n. 224.

________

ETA: One of the crimes the Italian prosecutors agreed was implied as having been committed by the police and Mignini by Amanda Knox in her testimony before the Massei court, and in her appeals, was calunnia. In other words, if Amanda Knox's testimony about the interrogation is true, the Italian authorities believe that the case can be made that the police and Mignini framed her by means of an intentional (malicious) false accusation. Similarly, the police and Mignini would have committed the crimes of falsification of official documents and (IIRC) the use of threats and violence to obtain false testimony. This information may be found in the introductory part of the Boninsegna court motivation report.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th September 2020 at 11:18 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 6th September 2020, 11:09 AM   #3249
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Mark Bowden on Amanda Knox' theory of PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN.

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
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
LMAO. Would this be the Mark Bowden who graduated from (the former polytechnic) Middlesex University with a degree in performing arts?


Oh and by the way, it's entirely clear that Knox was purely discussing the relative neatness* of her housemates' rooms because she was explaining how odd she found it that someone might break into their cottage and seemingly leave certain girls' rooms neat and untouched.


* but it's interesting how many people with a certain agenda - including your performing arts graduate - have chosen to wilfully misrepresent "clean" in a way that Knox obviously did not use the word......
What exactly makes this guy an 'expert' in body language? What specific training did he receive? I can find lots of great sounding claims that he's an expert but absolutely nothing about his background or education other than what LJ provided. For example, this claim:
Quote:
Mark Bowden is recognized as one of the world’s foremost authorities on nonverbal communication, voted the #1 Body Language Professional in the world by Global Gurus in 2014 and 2015.
Global Gurus manages speakers. Basically, they find speaking engagements for Bowden. If you look at his Bio, there is zero information on his professional training in body language, psychology, etc.

I guess this is what you present as some kind of evidence when you have nothing else but it is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
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 6th September 2020, 11:43 AM   #3250
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The Italian laws are codified into several different "codes" based on their topic, including those relevant here: criminal procedural law (Codice di procedura penale, CPP) and criminal law - that is, a list of crimes and their penalties (Codice penale, CP).

Calunnia is defined as a crime, so it is included, along with other crimes, for example, murder and fraud by the authorities in an investigation or trial, in the CP. It does not belong in the CPP, which has laws specifying procedures, for example, the warnings by the police or prosecutor that must be given to a suspect under interrogation and the procedures to be followed in a first-instance trial, in an appeal trial, and in an appeal to the CSC.

I have previously posted the text of the crime of calunnia in Italian and in English translation. There are several online sources that have the CP and the CPP (as well as the other codes) in Italian. Here's a list of a few of those sources, listing the CP page (in most cases there's a link to the CPP from that page); the last source is from the "Normattiva" ("Standards of Law") of the CSC:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/co.../codice-penale

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/

https://www.studiocataldi.it/codicep...dicepenale.pdf

https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2...930-10-19;1398

Here's the Italian text of the law against calunnia, from the 1st source; the footnotes are explanations of changes to the law:



Here's a translation (Google with my help using Collins Reverso & Gialuz et al.):

Art. 368.
False Accusation.

Anyone who, with a report, complaint, request or application, even if anonymous or under a false name, directs to the judicial authority {police, prosecutor, or judge} or to another authority that is obliged to report to it or to the International Criminal Court, accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against a person he knows to be innocent, is punished with imprisonment of from two to six years (1).

The penalty is increased if someone is accused of an offense for which the law establishes the penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty.

The imprisonment is from four to twelve years, if the act of the alleged crime results in a prison sentence of more than five years; is from six to twenty years, if the act results in a life sentence; and the penalty of life imprisonment is applied, if the act results in a death penalty (2).

(1) Paragraph thus amended by art. 10, paragraph 3, Law 20 December 2012, n. 237. The text previously in force was the following: "Anyone who, with a report, complaint, request or application, even if anonymous or under a false name, addressed to the judicial authority or to another authority which is obliged to report to it, accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against the person he knows to be innocent, is punished with imprisonment of from two to six years. ".

(2) The death penalty for crimes provided for by the penal code has been abolished by art. 1 of the Legislative Decree 10 August 1944, n. 224.

________

ETA: One of the crimes the Italian prosecutors agreed was implied as having been committed by the police and Mignini by Amanda Knox in her testimony before the Massei court, and in her appeals, was calunnia. In other words, if Amanda Knox's testimony about the interrogation is true, the Italian authorities believe that the case can be made that the police and Mignini framed her by means of an intentional (malicious) false accusation. Similarly, the police and Mignini would have committed the crimes of falsification of official documents and (IIRC) the use of threats and violence to obtain false testimony. This information may be found in the introductory part of the Boninsegna court motivation report.
Brilliant! Thanks for the links and the interpretation. I've saved it in document format so I'll explore it further tomorrow. One thing that does stick out is the criteria:

"accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against the person he knows to be innocent,"

Even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, how would they necessarily know who was in Meredith's bedroom with her? A narrative to accommodate the theory that Amanda was at VDP AND knew full well who was in Meredith's bedroom doesn't exist.

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 6th September 2020, 12:06 PM   #3251
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What exactly makes this guy an 'expert' in body language? What specific training did he receive? I can find lots of great sounding claims that he's an expert but absolutely nothing about his background or education other than what LJ provided. For example, this claim:


Global Gurus manages speakers. Basically, they find speaking engagements for Bowden. If you look at his Bio, there is zero information on his professional training in body language, psychology, etc.

I guess this is what you present as some kind of evidence when you have nothing else but it is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia article on Mark Bowden, English author.

Quote:
Mark Bowden is an author on body language and human behavior.[1]

Bowden’s nonverbal techniques for influence and persuasion have been described in the Canadian national press as a “secret weapon” for G7 leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.[2] His techniques derive from evolutionary psychology, behavioral psychology, and embodied cognition.[3][4] Most notable is Bowden's GesturePlane System, and the specific use of open palm hand gestures in what he coins as the "TruthPlane"[5][6][7] (the horizontal plane at navel height on the human body) to create feelings of trust, credibility, and confidence when communicating. This model was first put forward in his 2010 book, Winning Body Language.[8]

He is the President of The National Communication Coach Association of Canada.[9]

Bowden is a commentator for national news networks globally on the body language of senior politicians.[10] During US Presidential and Canadian Federal elections and debates, along with subsequent diplomatic meetings, he has commented in the international and national press and on network news worldwide on the body language of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Justin Trudeau, and Andrew Scheer.[11][12][13][14][15] Bowden contributes to GQ magazine on modern male culture and behavior.[16][17] He has also commented on the nonverbal behavior of Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts fighters Ronda Rousey, Conor McGregor and Jon Jones for Vox Media's SBNation.

Bowden was born in Northampton, England, educated at Weston Favell School, and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park,[19] at Middlesex University, London, graduating 1991, (BA Hons, Performing Arts).[20]

Bowden concurrently studied between 1989 and 1995 in London with French masters of physical theatre and the psychology of movement, Philippe Gaulier and Jacques Lecoq; Italian Nobel Prize winner and satirical comedian, Dario Fo; Canadian improvisational theatre master, Keith Johnstone; the British acrobat Johnny Hutch MBE.[21] and with the internationally acclaimed Theatre de Complicite.

Mark Bowden notoriously starred in the 2003 Nike Streaker Super Bowl ad, lauded by AdWeek as one of the top ten soccer commercials ever made.[23] Shot by British director, Frank Budgen[24] at Millwall Football Club, the ad—in which a streaker (Bowden) clad only in a long scarf and a pair of Nike Shox NZ running shoes darts across the field during an English soccer game, dodging police—prompted calls and emails to Nike asking whether the incident was real.[25] This led to Bowden being awarded a Nude of The Week in Sports Illustrated,[26] and earned him heavy criticism from the US Christian Evangelist activist group, Concerned Women For America who lobbied for Bowden to be banned from US national TV.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_B...English_author)

The UK GCHQ does signals intelligence - I haven't seen any public information that they do body language analysis.

Sources:

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

https://www.gchq.gov.uk/

Last edited by Numbers; 6th September 2020 at 12:12 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 6th September 2020, 12:25 PM   #3252
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia article on Mark Bowden, English author.



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_B...English_author)

The UK GCHQ does signals intelligence - I haven't seen any public information that they do body language analysis.

Sources:

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

https://www.gchq.gov.uk/


Well, it's hard to deny that this is an outstanding set of qualifications and experience for the job in which he claims expertise:

"Bowden concurrently studied between 1989 and 1995 in London with French masters of physical theatre and the psychology of movement, Philippe Gaulier and Jacques Lecoq; Italian Nobel Prize winner and satirical comedian, Dario Fo; Canadian improvisational theatre master, Keith Johnstone; the British acrobat Johnny Hutch MBE.[21] and with the internationally acclaimed Theatre de Complicite."


But wait, there's more. Now I'm really convinced that he is a towering intellect and an outstanding expert in a notoriously-difficult (and arguably useless) psychological discipline:

"Mark Bowden notoriously starred in the 2003 Nike Streaker Super Bowl ad, lauded by AdWeek as one of the top ten soccer commercials ever made.[23] Shot by British director, Frank Budgen[24] at Millwall Football Club, the ad—in which a streaker (Bowden) clad only in a long scarf and a pair of Nike Shox NZ running shoes darts across the field during an English soccer game, dodging police—prompted calls and emails to Nike asking whether the incident was real.[25] This led to Bowden being awarded a Nude of The Week in Sports Illustrated,[26] and earned him heavy criticism from the US Christian Evangelist activist group, Concerned Women For America who lobbied for Bowden to be banned from US national TV."
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 6th September 2020, 12:46 PM   #3253
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
And, by the way, I can instantly tell that this charlatan is engaging in CV inflation from this information (gleaned, no doubt, from Bowden himself ultimately):

"...and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park"

Let's unpack this properly.

1) Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is the official name of MI6, and it's the overseas intelligence arm of UK intelligence (the UK's CIA, effectively);

2) But GCHQ is an entirely different arm of the British intelligence community; it's based in Cheltenham (about 100 miles from London) and is responsible for communications surveillance;

3) And MI19 is (well, was) a different organisation from both SIS and GCHQ: MI19 was the branch of British military intelligence which was responsible in WWII for the interrogations (and other surveillance) of captured enemy prisoners of war. MI19 was disbanded at the end of WWII

4) Trent Park is a large country house in north London (I know it well, as I used to live not far away, and I've played golf on a course in its grounds....); it was requisitioned by the Government at the start of WWII and was then used by MI19 for the housing and interrogation of captured German officers, nearly all of whom were pilots/airmen;

5) Since the end of WWII, Trent Park has not been used by any arm of the British intelligence services (not MI19, which has long since been disbanded; not GCHQ; and assuredly not SIS, which only operates outside the UK)

6) In fact, at some point in (I think) the 1970s, Trent Park was bought by Enfield council, and it was then leased to Middlesex Polytechnic (sounding familiar....?) as part of its campus stock.


So in fact, Bowden attended Trent Park purely in its capacity as a place of teaching during his attendance at Middlesex Polytechnic (and I'm very confident indeed that his attendance predated the polytechnic's morphing into a (low-grade) university). His attendance there had literally nothing whatsoever to do with MI19, SIS or GCHQ.


And thus we see another (probable) intriguing example of CV inflation. I wonder if any posters in this thread have ever shamelessly inflated their CVs....?
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 6th September 2020, 12:59 PM   #3254
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well, it's hard to deny that this is an outstanding set of qualifications and experience for the job in which he claims expertise:

"Bowden concurrently studied between 1989 and 1995 in London with French masters of physical theatre and the psychology of movement, Philippe Gaulier and Jacques Lecoq; Italian Nobel Prize winner and satirical comedian, Dario Fo; Canadian improvisational theatre master, Keith Johnstone; the British acrobat Johnny Hutch MBE.[21] and with the internationally acclaimed Theatre de Complicite."


But wait, there's more. Now I'm really convinced that he is a towering intellect and an outstanding expert in a notoriously-difficult (and arguably useless) psychological discipline:

"Mark Bowden notoriously starred in the 2003 Nike Streaker Super Bowl ad, lauded by AdWeek as one of the top ten soccer commercials ever made.[23] Shot by British director, Frank Budgen[24] at Millwall Football Club, the ad—in which a streaker (Bowden) clad only in a long scarf and a pair of Nike Shox NZ running shoes darts across the field during an English soccer game, dodging police—prompted calls and emails to Nike asking whether the incident was real.[25] This led to Bowden being awarded a Nude of The Week in Sports Illustrated,[26] and earned him heavy criticism from the US Christian Evangelist activist group, Concerned Women For America who lobbied for Bowden to be banned from US national TV."
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 6th September 2020, 01:17 PM   #3255
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
By the way, and in another one of those absolutely spooky coincidences which happens once in a while:

I was just flicking through the pay-TV schedules here in London, at 9.20pm our time. I went first to the group of documentary channels, to see if there was anything interesting to watch as I got myself set up for the coming week.

And what should I see on PBS's UK channel, starting in just over 90 minutes?

Why, only a documentary about how British intelligence used secret microphones to eavesdrop on, and record, captured German POWs in WWII, at Trent Park!!

Absolute total, genuine, gold-plated coincidence!
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 6th September 2020, 01:19 PM   #3256
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
By the way, and in another one of those absolutely spooky coincidences which happens once in a while:

I was just flicking through the pay-TV schedules here in London, at 9.20pm our time. I went first to the group of documentary channels, to see if there was anything interesting to watch as I got myself set up for the coming week.

And what should I see on PBS's UK channel, starting in just over 90 minutes?

Why, only a documentary about how British intelligence used secret microphones to eavesdrop on, and record, captured German POWs in WWII, at Trent Park!!

Absolute total, genuine, gold-plated coincidence!
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 6th September 2020, 01:41 PM   #3257
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And, by the way, I can instantly tell that this charlatan is engaging in CV inflation from this information (gleaned, no doubt, from Bowden himself ultimately):

"...and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park"

Let's unpack this properly.

1) Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is the official name of MI6, and it's the overseas intelligence arm of UK intelligence (the UK's CIA, effectively);

2) But GCHQ is an entirely different arm of the British intelligence community; it's based in Cheltenham (about 100 miles from London) and is responsible for communications surveillance;

3) And MI19 is (well, was) a different organisation from both SIS and GCHQ: MI19 was the branch of British military intelligence which was responsible in WWII for the interrogations (and other surveillance) of captured enemy prisoners of war. MI19 was disbanded at the end of WWII

4) Trent Park is a large country house in north London (I know it well, as I used to live not far away, and I've played golf on a course in its grounds....); it was requisitioned by the Government at the start of WWII and was then used by MI19 for the housing and interrogation of captured German officers, nearly all of whom were pilots/airmen;

5) Since the end of WWII, Trent Park has not been used by any arm of the British intelligence services (not MI19, which has long since been disbanded; not GCHQ; and assuredly not SIS, which only operates outside the UK)

6) In fact, at some point in (I think) the 1970s, Trent Park was bought by Enfield council, and it was then leased to Middlesex Polytechnic (sounding familiar....?) as part of its campus stock.


So in fact, Bowden attended Trent Park purely in its capacity as a place of teaching during his attendance at Middlesex Polytechnic (and I'm very confident indeed that his attendance predated the polytechnic's morphing into a (low-grade) university). His attendance there had literally nothing whatsoever to do with MI19, SIS or GCHQ.


And thus we see another (probable) intriguing example of CV inflation. I wonder if any posters in this thread have ever shamelessly inflated their CVs....?
LJ, thanks for this!

I actually thought Bowden was claiming some kind of intelligence service training.

I see now that: "trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park,[19] at Middlesex University, London, graduating 1991, (BA Hons, Performing Arts)"

is, as you point out, merely stating what campus of Middlesex U. (or Polytech) he attended, at least at some point. No relationship to GCHQ, or MI19 (whose history I did not know).

So it's hilarious, like streaking in a TV ad to promote a brand of running shoe.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th September 2020 at 01:43 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 6th September 2020, 01:49 PM   #3258
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
LJ, thanks for this!

I actually thought Bowden was claiming some kind of intelligence service training.

I see now that: "trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park,[19] at Middlesex University, London, graduating 1991, (BA Hons, Performing Arts)"

is, as you point out, merely stating what campus of Middlesex U. (or Polytech) he attended, at least at some point. No relationship to GCHQ, or MI19 (whose history I did not know).

So it's hilarious, like streaking in a TV ad to promote a brand of running shoe.
I just read that during WWII, MI19 operated an interrogation centre in Kensington Palace Gardens, London, commanded by Lt. Col. Alexander Scotland, where very questionable interrogation tactics were used.

One might want to avoid MI19 when bragging about credentials.
__________________
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 6th September 2020, 02:35 PM   #3259
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And, by the way, I can instantly tell that this charlatan is engaging in CV inflation from this information (gleaned, no doubt, from Bowden himself ultimately):

"...and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park"

Let's unpack this properly.

1) Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is the official name of MI6, and it's the overseas intelligence arm of UK intelligence (the UK's CIA, effectively);

2) But GCHQ is an entirely different arm of the British intelligence community; it's based in Cheltenham (about 100 miles from London) and is responsible for communications surveillance;

3) And MI19 is (well, was) a different organisation from both SIS and GCHQ: MI19 was the branch of British military intelligence which was responsible in WWII for the interrogations (and other surveillance) of captured enemy prisoners of war. MI19 was disbanded at the end of WWII

4) Trent Park is a large country house in north London (I know it well, as I used to live not far away, and I've played golf on a course in its grounds....); it was requisitioned by the Government at the start of WWII and was then used by MI19 for the housing and interrogation of captured German officers, nearly all of whom were pilots/airmen;

5) Since the end of WWII, Trent Park has not been used by any arm of the British intelligence services (not MI19, which has long since been disbanded; not GCHQ; and assuredly not SIS, which only operates outside the UK)

6) In fact, at some point in (I think) the 1970s, Trent Park was bought by Enfield council, and it was then leased to Middlesex Polytechnic (sounding familiar....?) as part of its campus stock.


So in fact, Bowden attended Trent Park purely in its capacity as a place of teaching during his attendance at Middlesex Polytechnic (and I'm very confident indeed that his attendance predated the polytechnic's morphing into a (low-grade) university). His attendance there had literally nothing whatsoever to do with MI19, SIS or GCHQ.


And thus we see another (probable) intriguing example of CV inflation. I wonder if any posters in this thread have ever shamelessly inflated their CVs....?
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
LJ, thanks for this!

I actually thought Bowden was claiming some kind of intelligence service training.

I see now that: "trained on he site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park,[19] at Middlesex University, London, graduating 1991, (BA Hons, Performing Arts)"

is, as you point out, merely stating what campus of Middlesex U. (or Polytech) he attended, at least at some point. No relationship to GCHQ, or MI19 (whose history I did not know).

So it's hilarious, like streaking in a TV ad to promote a brand of running shoe.
LJ, you are also spot on about Bowden having necessarily attended Middlesex Polytechnic, a precursor of Middlesex University. Middlesex University only came into existence in 1992, and Bowden got his degree in Performing Arts in 1991, according to the Wikipedia article.

Of some interest, there was a Trent Park College of Education and New College of Speech and Drama which joined into Middlesex Polytechnic in 1974. However, the Trent Park campus was closed in 2012, as part of an effort to bolster the financial condition of Middlesex U. which to date has resulted in the closure of all its satellite campuses in the UK. The Trent Park site was converted to new residential housing by a developer.

The areas of study at the Trent Park campus were: Dance, drama and performing arts, English language and literature, media, culture and communication, music, theatre arts, languages and translation studies, product design, Teaching and education.

It's fascinating that Mr. Bowden has migrated from his acting career to claiming expertise in analyzing, apparently based on his own notions, the psychological meaning of the body motions of politicians and celebrities. To my knowledge, there is no published scientifically verified basis for the application of Bowden's notions. Bowden has, however, apparently self-published his ideas in five books, available from Amazon.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesex_University

Last edited by Numbers; 6th September 2020 at 02:45 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 6th September 2020, 03:24 PM   #3260
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
This is what another military interrogator, Jason Waller, had to say about body language:

Quote:
Don’t Overthink It
There’s risk in putting too much weight on body language. If we’re always looking for crossed arms or touching of the nose or shoes pointed away from us, we’re likely to misinterpret something. Even the more reliable fingers, feet, and face aren’t really that reliable.
Body language can tell us a lot....but so much of it is subjective. Does the viewer known the person well enough to interpret them correctly? For example, my sister has what's know as a 'resting bitch face'. She was always being asked if she was OK at work when she was just fine because her 'resting face' was misinterpreted by new people as her being upset. Did the viewer have enough time to get a baseline to compare the normal facial expressions and other gestures the subject makes so they don't mistake those with signs of lying or discomfort? For these four men to take this one video and think they can sit there in an echo chamber and do a cold analysis of Knox's behavior is such arrogance.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 6th September 2020 at 05:06 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2020, 04:38 PM   #3261
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is what another military interrogator, Jason Waller, had to say about body language:



Body language can tell us a lot....but so much of it is subjective. Does the viewer know the person well enough to interpret them correctly? For example, my sister has what's know as a 'resting bitch face'. She was always being asked if she was OK at work when she was just fine because her 'resting face' was misinterpreted by new people as her being upset. Did the viewer have enough time to get a baseline to compare the normal facial expressions and other gestures the subject makes so they don't mistake those with signs of lying or discomfort? For these four men to take this one video and think they can sit there in an echo chamber and do a cold analysis of Knox's behavior is such arrogance.


Oh it's much more than arrogance IMO. It's actually a firm indication that they are either indulging in, or condoning/allowing, pseudoscience claptrap in the search for clickbait statistics. For exactly the reasons you set out above.
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 6th September 2020, 04:49 PM   #3262
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh it's much more than arrogance IMO. It's actually a firm indication that they are either indulging in, or condoning/allowing, pseudoscience claptrap in the search for clickbait statistics. For exactly the reasons you set out above.
The four body language panel "experts" make money from selling their books, courses, and in-person talks.

Every time they publicly "analyze" a politician or celebrity, including Amanda Knox, they are merely advertising.
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 6th September 2020, 09:48 PM   #3263
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The four body language panel "experts" make money from selling their books, courses, and in-person talks.

Every time they publicly "analyze" a politician or celebrity, including Amanda Knox, they are merely advertising.
No one ever lost money telling a gullible public what that public thinks they already know.

All except Nick van der Leek, that is.
__________________
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 7th September 2020, 03:47 AM   #3264
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The four body language panel "experts" make money from selling their books, courses, and in-person talks.

Every time they publicly "analyze" a politician or celebrity, including Amanda Knox, they are merely advertising.

Yep. And as a general rule, it's always an excellent idea to consider the question "Cui bono?" when looking at things like this.....
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 7th September 2020, 10:19 AM   #3265
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
This video of Bowden's Nike streaking commercial gives me a whole new take on 'body language'! Thank goodness for the blur feature.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMv_...CLo6GkePN6ZU7E
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 7th September 2020, 11:08 AM   #3266
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is what another military interrogator, Jason Waller, had to say about body language:



Body language can tell us a lot....but so much of it is subjective. Does the viewer known the person well enough to interpret them correctly? For example, my sister has what's know as a 'resting bitch face'. She was always being asked if she was OK at work when she was just fine because her 'resting face' was misinterpreted by new people as her being upset. Did the viewer have enough time to get a baseline to compare the normal facial expressions and other gestures the subject makes so they don't mistake those with signs of lying or discomfort? For these four men to take this one video and think they can sit there in an echo chamber and do a cold analysis of Knox's behavior is such arrogance.
If there was solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele as Vixen constantly boasts, why does Vixen has to resort to using body language rather than actual evidence to argue her case and is unable to answer this question.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2020, 03:31 PM   #3267
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
If there was solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele as Vixen constantly boasts, why does Vixen has to resort to using body language rather than actual evidence to argue her case and is unable to answer this question.
This what John Douglas implied. It says all that needs to be said that guilter-nutters don't get it.
__________________
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 7th September 2020, 04:21 PM   #3268
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This what John Douglas implied. It says all that needs to be said that guilter-nutters don't get it.

Yes.

And in fact, even if/when body language is employed as a tool by law enforcement agencies, it must only ever be used as a pre-screening tool. For example, suppose a crime is committed, and the police quickly identify and question - as witnesses at this point - several people, each of whom they feel might possibly have something to do with the crime.

Now, it would then be both permissible and potentially useful for a body language specialist to analyse the witnesses, and try to make a determination about which (if any) of them was exhibiting signs that made themselves appear suspicious. This then might (potentially) serve as a useful tool for the police, who could focus most of their time and resources into investigating that one person in much more depth, in a search for evidence of guilt.

But - and this cannot be stressed highly enough - body language is not (and can never be) evidence, in and of itself, of guilt. And precious few courts, if any, would entertain the introduction of body language as evidence.

In short, the only viable use of body language analysis in criminal investigations/prosecutions is right at the start of the investigation process, as a tool to allow police to focus on maybe one or two out of several potential suspects (though of course with the understanding that if no actual evidence is found which points at either of these two, police will then need to move on to investigating others).
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 7th September 2020, 05:05 PM   #3269
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes.

And in fact, even if/when body language is employed as a tool by law enforcement agencies, it must only ever be used as a pre-screening tool. For example, suppose a crime is committed, and the police quickly identify and question - as witnesses at this point - several people, each of whom they feel might possibly have something to do with the crime.

Now, it would then be both permissible and potentially useful for a body language specialist to analyse the witnesses, and try to make a determination about which (if any) of them was exhibiting signs that made themselves appear suspicious. This then might (potentially) serve as a useful tool for the police, who could focus most of their time and resources into investigating that one person in much more depth, in a search for evidence of guilt.

But - and this cannot be stressed highly enough - body language is not (and can never be) evidence, in and of itself, of guilt. And precious few courts, if any, would entertain the introduction of body language as evidence.

In short, the only viable use of body language analysis in criminal investigations/prosecutions is right at the start of the investigation process, as a tool to allow police to focus on maybe one or two out of several potential suspects (though of course with the understanding that if no actual evidence is found which points at either of these two, police will then need to move on to investigating others).
Otherwise, why not just play a video of the interrogation for the jury? Let them see the defendant raise an eyebrow a bit too high, look to the right once too often, draw the corner of the mouth down a few times, fail to look the interrogator in the eye when answering a question or cross their arms at the wrong time and then decide on guilt or innocence? Or just cut to the chase and look them in the eyes?
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 7th September 2020, 06:04 PM   #3270
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes.

And in fact, even if/when body language is employed as a tool by law enforcement agencies, it must only ever be used as a pre-screening tool. For example, suppose a crime is committed, and the police quickly identify and question - as witnesses at this point - several people, each of whom they feel might possibly have something to do with the crime.
About the only other use for Body Language analysis is to coach someone on their resting faces (as StacyHS said), or their natural body posture. Their "resting pose" may look odd or "suspicious". Someone who knows the lay of the land might be able to coach someone not to do those things.....

It's veracity falls off greatly when the claim is that it is predictive.
__________________
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 7th September 2020, 07:48 PM   #3271
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This video of Bowden's Nike streaking commercial gives me a whole new take on 'body language'! Thank goodness for the blur feature.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMv_...CLo6GkePN6ZU7E
What better evidence could exist of the scientific (un)seriousness of a body language expert than Bowden's performance as a streaker?
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 7th September 2020, 10:41 PM   #3272
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
What better evidence could exist of the scientific (un)seriousness of a body language expert than Bowden's performance as a streaker?
He's no 'expert'. I'd bet he's garnered all his 'knowledge' from pilfering from other people's books and reading articles from the internet then regurgitating it all in his books. Rather reminds me of Nick van der Leek.


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 8th September 2020, 01:01 PM   #3273
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Here are some excerpts from an interesting article about some research which could explain why some persons continue to hold negative views of Knox or Sollecito even after their final acquittal on the murder/rape charges and the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy that Italy had violated Knox's rights to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.

Quote:
Fake news can distort people’s beliefs even after being debunked.

....
Ghent University researchers Jonas De keersmaecker and Arne Roets first had over 400 subjects take a personality test. They then randomly assigned each subject to one of two conditions. In the experimental condition, the subjects read a biographical description of a young woman named Nathalie. The bio explained that Nathalie, a nurse at a local hospital, “was arrested for stealing drugs from the hospital; she has been stealing drugs for 2 years and selling them on the street in order to buy designer clothes.” The subjects then rated Nathalie on traits such as trustworthiness and sincerity, after which they took a test of cognitive ability. Finally, the subjects saw a message on their computer screen explicitly stating that the information about Nathalie stealing drugs and getting arrested was not true, and then rated her again on the same traits. The control condition was identical, except that subjects were not given the paragraph with the false information and rated Nathalie only once.

The subjects in the experimental condition initially rated Nathalie much more negatively than did the subjects in the control condition. This was not surprising, considering that they had just learned she was a thief and a drug dealer. The interesting question was whether cognitive ability would predict attitude adjustment—that is, the degree to which the subjects in the experimental condition would rate Nathalie more favorably after being told that this information was false. It did: subjects high in cognitive ability adjusted their ratings more than did those lower in cognitive ability. The subjects with lower cognitive ability had more trouble shaking their negative first impression of Nathalie. This was true even after the researchers statistically controlled for the subjects’ level of open-mindedness (their willingness to change their mind when wrong) and right-wing authoritarianism (their intolerance toward others), as assessed by the personality test. Thus, even if a person was open-minded and tolerant, a low level of cognitive ability put them at risk for being unjustifiably harsh in their second evaluation of Nathalie.

One possible explanation for this finding is based on the theory that a person’s cognitive ability reflects how well they can regulate the contents of working memory—their “mental workspace” for processing information. ....
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-to-fake-news/

Last edited by Numbers; 8th September 2020 at 01:03 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2020, 01:30 PM   #3274
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here are some excerpts from an interesting article about some research which could explain why some persons continue to hold negative views of Knox or Sollecito even after their final acquittal on the murder/rape charges and the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy that Italy had violated Knox's rights to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.



Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-to-fake-news/
Here is the abstract of the original article. Note that the actual number of subjects was 390, not 400, according to the abstract.

Quote:
Abstract

The present experiment (N = 390) examined how people adjust their judgment after they learn that crucial information on which their initial evaluation was based is incorrect. In line with our expectations, the results showed that people generally do adjust their attitudes, but the degree to which they correct their assessment depends on their cognitive ability. In particular, individuals with lower levels of cognitive ability adjusted their attitudes to a lesser extent than individuals with higher levels of cognitive ability. Moreover, for those with lower levels of cognitive ability, even after the explicit disconfirmation of the false information, adjusted attitudes remained biased and significantly different from the attitudes of the control group who was never exposed to the incorrect information. In contrast, the adjusted attitudes of those with higher levels of cognitive ability were similar to those of the control group. Controlling for need for closure and right-wing authoritarianism did not influence the relationship between cognitive ability and attitude adjustment. The present results indicate that, even in optimal circumstances, the initial influence of incorrect information cannot simply be undone by pointing out that this information was incorrect, especially in people with relatively lower cognitive ability.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60289617301617

‘Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions

De keersmaecker, J and Roets, A

Intelligence, Nov. 2017, vol. 65:107-110
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 8th September 2020, 06:12 PM   #3275
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
In other words, people who have difficulty absorbing facts and information of the case past the Massei trial continue to believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2020, 08:12 AM   #3276
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
In other words, people who have difficulty absorbing facts and information of the case past the Massei trial continue to believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty.
That's what happens when a global media relentlessly informs people of what an evil bitch Amanda is and the Massei court confirms it.

I had the benefit of not paying much attention to the case until just before the Hellmann verdict, so I hadn't been jaded by all the bogus reporting. I was fascinated by the polar opposite findings of the two courts (Massei & Hellmann) and started researching. By that time it was becoming easier to separate fact from fiction, but if you were already convinced of her guilt then you likely weren't interested.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2020, 09:25 AM   #3277
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
That's what happens when a global media relentlessly informs people of what an evil bitch Amanda is and the Massei court confirms it.

I had the benefit of not paying much attention to the case until just before the Hellmann verdict, so I hadn't been jaded by all the bogus reporting. I was fascinated by the polar opposite findings of the two courts (Massei & Hellmann) and started researching. By that time it was becoming easier to separate fact from fiction, but if you were already convinced of her guilt then you likely weren't interested.
The experiment by the Ghent U. researchers used a group of subjects who were no doubt initially (before reading the fictitious biography) neutral regarding the fictitious nurse. And the subjects had no ideological or commercial interest in promoting or maintaining certain views even after reading the fictitious biography.

But in the case of Knox and Sollecito, after the general public became aware of the case often through the inaccurate and slanted media articles, some of that public may have become fixed on a view of guilt not merely because of a low cognitive ability, but rather because of an ideological viewpoint or a commercial interest.
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 9th September 2020, 09:43 AM   #3278
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
That's what happens when a global media relentlessly informs people of what an evil bitch Amanda is and the Massei court confirms it.
Except that the Massei court does not uphold that part of it. The Massei court, even in eventually convicting, was presented with prosecution theories which changed frequently - so much so that the Massei motivations report explaining the guilty verdict had to invent a completely different motive.

The motive for the killing was Guede's and Guede's alone, acc. to Massei. Massei specifically wrote that he could see both no evidence and no motive for AK and/or RS to initiate an attack on the victim.

But Massei theorized that eventually, both AK and RS joined in on the attack. In theorizing about that, did Massei return to anything that the prosecution had presented at trial? Satanic rite? Sex-game gone wrong? No.

Massei said it had been a "choice for evil", a choice made while AK had been away from her otherwise normal home, and far from the normal moral strictures she had otherwise been used to. Massei theorized that it was a one-off evil choice made by an otherwise non-evil person - or at the very least with nothing in her background to explain the choice.

Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I had the benefit of not paying much attention to the case until just before the Hellmann verdict, so I hadn't been jaded by all the bogus reporting. I was fascinated by the polar opposite findings of the two courts (Massei & Hellmann) and started researching. By that time it was becoming easier to separate fact from fiction, but if you were already convinced of her guilt then you likely weren't interested.
Me to. It has occurred to me that if I had been in on it since the beginning, my own confirmation biases could have developed differently.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 9th September 2020 at 09:45 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 9th September 2020, 11:01 AM   #3279
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The experiment by the Ghent U. researchers used a group of subjects who were no doubt initially (before reading the fictitious biography) neutral regarding the fictitious nurse. And the subjects had no ideological or commercial interest in promoting or maintaining certain views even after reading the fictitious biography.

But in the case of Knox and Sollecito, after the general public became aware of the case often through the inaccurate and slanted media articles, some of that public may have become fixed on a view of guilt not merely because of a low cognitive ability, but rather because of an ideological viewpoint or a commercial interest.
Once someone forms an opinion, even if based on erroneous information that they are then informed about, many will cling to that opinion rather than admit they were wrong. Some people just have an incredibly difficult time admitting they are wrong about anything.
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 9th September 2020, 01:37 PM   #3280
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Except that the Massei court does not uphold that part of it. The Massei court, even in eventually convicting, was presented with prosecution theories which changed frequently - so much so that the Massei motivations report explaining the guilty verdict had to invent a completely different motive.

The motive for the killing was Guede's and Guede's alone, acc. to Massei. Massei specifically wrote that he could see both no evidence and no motive for AK and/or RS to initiate an attack on the victim.

But Massei theorized that eventually, both AK and RS joined in on the attack. In theorizing about that, did Massei return to anything that the prosecution had presented at trial? Satanic rite? Sex-game gone wrong? No.

Massei said it had been a "choice for evil", a choice made while AK had been away from her otherwise normal home, and far from the normal moral strictures she had otherwise been used to. Massei theorized that it was a one-off evil choice made by an otherwise non-evil person - or at the very least with nothing in her background to explain the choice.


Me to. It has occurred to me that if I had been in on it since the beginning, my own confirmation biases could have developed differently.
While that might be technically correct, I would imagine >95% of the people who knew of the case and then heard of the conviction ONLY paid attention to the conviction, and that, in turn, confirmed that everything they had heard about Amanda must be true.

I agree... we all have confirmation bias. It could not have been easy to read/listen to the media those first couple of years and NOT conclude anything other than the worst about Amanda. To change your opinion after that would require major commitment to accepting facts and dismissing rumor and innuendo.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 10:58 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.