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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 30th June 2019, 07:25 AM   #441
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The calunnia conviction is not vacated.
True. Not yet anyway. Gee, give Italy some time to comply with their treaty obligations.

BTW - the rest of us posters here in the thread are terribly vindictive, and are saving your posts. Just to remind you later on when Italy does comply.

This is sort of like you posting that pic of a window with bars over it, to prove it had no bars over it, only in reverse!
__________________
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 30th June 2019, 07:25 AM   #442
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The calunnia conviction is not vacated.

Yet.

Again, please take the trouble to read the ECHR judgement carefully. And then try to work out its implications, in terms of the actions Italy is now instructed to take.

Then come back to us with the correct answer.
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 30th June 2019, 07:27 AM   #443
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It cannot be a libel if a thing is true. The fact it is in the final Supreme Court judgement in the case means it is irrefutably true as far as the law is concerned. IOW the judgment says Knox was there together with Guede (and almost certainly with Sollecito) at the time of the murder . You want to sue me for libel? Good luck with that.

Why would Bill want (or even be able) to bring action against you in this scenario? Do you even understand libel law?


(And you clearly don't understand the Marasca SC judgement properly, do you?)
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 30th June 2019, 07:28 AM   #444
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why don't you read the article, in which it says the Kerchers are extremely upset.
You're the one who hasn't read the article. Here's what it actually says:

A source close to the Kercher family said: “We accept he has to be freed at some point but it is upsetting to see him outside now.”

"it is upsetting" doesn't equal "extremely upset". Except in your twisted fantasy world.

And I dare say "it is upsetting" suggests a lesser degree of "upset" than Knox having been invited to address an Italian Innocence Conference.
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 30th June 2019, 07:36 AM   #445
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So why did Sollecito express his fears in writing when Guede was arrested about what strange things Rudy might say about him.
Gee, I wonder if it could have had anything to do with stuff like Guede saying one thing while on the lam in Germany and another behind a closed door with Mignini? Or that Guede was disowned by his adoptive Italian family for, among other things, being a habitual liar?

Perhaps you can explain why, under the circumstances, Sollecito wouldn't have expressed fears? And while you're at it, please produce credible evidence that Guede & Sollecito had ever so much as met one another prior to the former's murder of Kercher.
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 30th June 2019, 07:37 AM   #446
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It cannot be a libel if a thing is true. The fact it is in the final Supreme Court judgement in the case means it is irrefutably true as far as the law is concerned. IOW the judgment says Knox was there together with Guede (and almost certainly with Sollecito) at the time of the murder . You want to sue me for libel? Good luck with that.
You're safe from me! But why you have this need to libel people is your own business and your own peril. Good for you!

But at least read the motivations report that you say shields you from being so thoughtlessly cruel and rude:
Originally Posted by Marasca Bruno report section 9.4.1
Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact,
resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the
scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her
contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another
part of the house.
Speaking of revisions, though, the very next "judicial fact" that the 2015 Supreme Court refers to is this....
Originally Posted by Marasca Bruno report section 9.4.1
Another element against her is, certainly, the calumny against Lumumba, which
has already been referred to.

It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these
serious accusations.
I'll give you some time to consider what this month's ECHR ruling does to that judicial fact.

You made ten posts in less than an hour. This must be very important to you to utter venom at someone you've never met, who has also been totally vindicated from any accusations about something that happened 12 years ago!
__________________
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 30th June 2019, 07:37 AM   #447
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So why did Sollecito express his fears in writing when Guede was arrested about what strange things Rudy might say about him.

Oooh, now, let's think this one through eh, Vixen!

Let's suppose, for a moment, that Guede alone committed this attack/murder. So, by definition, Guede would know that only he was involved, and he would know that Sollecito was not involved, and Sollecito would know that he (Sollecito) was not involved.

With me so far?

So now Guede gets caught and arrested.

But Knox and Sollecito are already in custody and in the frame. And Guede knows that.

Now, Vixen: here comes the "logical reasoning" part. Ready? OK.

Can you see, Vixen, how an innocent Sollecito in this scenario might be frightened that Guede might seek to implicate him (Sollecito) in the murder?

You cannot see that? OK. I'll expand and explain.

See - it serves Guede, as sole assailant, very well to try to blame some or all of the murder on someone else. And who are the obvious "someone else" in this instance? Why, they are Knox and Sollecito. Whom Guede already knows are in custody and being linked to the murder.

And it doesn't take a particularly high IQ on the part of Sollecito to realise all of the above (well, a higher IQ than that of the average pro-guilt commentator, I grant you. But not all that high).

And that, Vixen, is precisely how and why a factually-innocent Sollecito - sitting in a prison cell having been accused of being involved in the murder - would have every right in logic and reason to be afraid of Guede trying to implicate him (Sollecito) in the murder.

It's really not difficult to figure out. But I suppose it takes critical thinking and logical reasoning, not to mention a lack of bias and a lack of a priori conclusion-reaching. These are all very useful skills and analytical tools to learn.
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 30th June 2019, 07:47 AM   #448
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oooh, now, let's think this one through eh, Vixen!

Let's suppose, for a moment, that Guede alone committed this attack/murder. So, by definition, Guede would know that only he was involved, and he would know that Sollecito was not involved, and Sollecito would know that he (Sollecito) was not involved.

With me so far?

So now Guede gets caught and arrested.

But Knox and Sollecito are already in custody and in the frame. And Guede knows that.

Now, Vixen: here comes the "logical reasoning" part. Ready? OK.

Can you see, Vixen, how an innocent Sollecito in this scenario might be frightened that Guede might seek to implicate him (Sollecito) in the murder?

You cannot see that? OK. I'll expand and explain.

See - it serves Guede, as sole assailant, very well to try to blame some or all of the murder on someone else. And who are the obvious "someone else" in this instance? Why, they are Knox and Sollecito. Whom Guede already knows are in custody and being linked to the murder.

And it doesn't take a particularly high IQ on the part of Sollecito to realise all of the above (well, a higher IQ than that of the average pro-guilt commentator, I grant you. But not all that high).

And that, Vixen, is precisely how and why a factually-innocent Sollecito - sitting in a prison cell having been accused of being involved in the murder - would have every right in logic and reason to be afraid of Guede trying to implicate him (Sollecito) in the murder.

It's really not difficult to figure out. But I suppose it takes critical thinking and logical reasoning, not to mention a lack of bias and a lack of a priori conclusion-reaching. These are all very useful skills and analytical tools to learn.

Think hard. Lumumba pining away in his prison cell was overjoyed when Guede was caught and he was released. He didn't start fretting about 'what Rudy might say about me'.

You would have thought the 'innocent' Raff would be ecstatic the police now had the 'right' person.

The chin dribblers think he was right to be concerned that Rudy might recognise him 'as he is a liar', they claim.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 08:01 AM   #449
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Think hard. Lumumba pining away in his prison cell was overjoyed when Guede was caught and he was released. He didn't start fretting about 'what Rudy might say about me'.

You would have thought the 'innocent' Raff would be ecstatic the police now had the 'right' person.

The chin dribblers think he was right to be concerned that Rudy might recognise him 'as he is a liar', they claim.

Ooh firstly show us the evidence that Lumumba was "overjoyed" when Guede was caught (obviously he was overjoyed when he was released, but he wasn't released simply because Guede was caught).

Secondly, you seem not to know that Lumumba was actually only released because he had the good fortune to have a very strong alibi from a reliable source. And even then, the Perugia police worked very hard to try to disprove that alibi.

Thirdly, it appears you didn't properly read what I wrote about exactly why an innocent Sollecito would be right to be worried about how Guede might try to implicate him (Sollecito), including my articulation about why it would clearly and obviously be in Guede's own interest to try to transfer blame onto someone he already knew well to have already been accused of the murder.

Try again.
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 30th June 2019, 08:35 AM   #450
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Think hard. Lumumba pining away in his prison cell was overjoyed when Guede was caught and he was released. He didn't start fretting about 'what Rudy might say about me'.
You have this uncanny ability to know what people are thinking!
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You would have thought the 'innocent' Raff would be ecstatic the police now had the 'right' person.

The chin dribblers think he was right to be concerned that Rudy might recognise him 'as he is a liar', they claim.
How would an innocent Raffaele know the police had the right person?
__________________
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 30th June 2019, 08:40 AM   #451
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,016
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Thanks Numbers, the part I've highlighted is clear enough. You've talked about the possibility of the calunnia being "vacated" as far as Amanda is concerned. Does that mean what it suggests i.e. simply that the charge no longer exists?

Hoots
I don't recall using the word "vacated" to describe the procedure Italy will follow under its laws to dismiss the calunnia charges against Amanda Knox or to acquit her of those charges. However, some have used it and, in effect, the charges may be vacated by the Italian legal procedure actually used.

The legal procedure to dismiss or acquit a final conviction requires a "revision" proceeding which must be initiated in an Italian Court of Appeal by a request for revision made by a prosecutor or by the convicted person or by both. The revision legal procedure, including compensation for miscarriage of justice, is defined under Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Articles 629 through 647.

Possibly, an alternative path is the Italian pardon procedure.

In the case that a revision results is the dismissal of charges, those charges no longer exist and the person's conviction obviously no longer exists.

In the case that a revision results in the acquittal on the charges, the record of the formerly convicted person is changed to that of an acquittal. In Amanda's case, based on the ECHR judgment, the specification of the acquittal (the specification is a necessary element under Italian law) would almost certainly be that the crime of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba did not occur. The reason for that is that the crime of calunnia requires, as an element, that the person convicted knowingly and voluntarily falsely accused another of a crime. The final ECHR judgment in the case of Amanda Knox v. Italy demolishes this required element.

Last edited by Numbers; 30th June 2019 at 08:46 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 30th June 2019, 09:35 AM   #452
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ooh firstly show us the evidence that Lumumba was "overjoyed" when Guede was caught (obviously he was overjoyed when he was released, but he wasn't released simply because Guede was caught).

Secondly, you seem not to know that Lumumba was actually only released because he had the good fortune to have a very strong alibi from a reliable source. And even then, the Perugia police worked very hard to try to disprove that alibi.

Thirdly, it appears you didn't properly read what I wrote about exactly why an innocent Sollecito would be right to be worried about how Guede might try to implicate him (Sollecito), including my articulation about why it would clearly and obviously be in Guede's own interest to try to transfer blame onto someone he already knew well to have already been accused of the murder and who did not have an alibi.

Try again.

FIFY
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 09:36 AM   #453
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You have this uncanny ability to know what people are thinking!


How would an innocent Raffaele know the police had the right person?
From the fears he expressed as to what this person 'might say about me'.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 09:53 AM   #454
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
From the fears he expressed as to what this person 'might say about me'.
You're hopeless. How does this remotely answer the question: "How does an innocent Raffaele know that the police have caught the right person," when they caught Rudy Guede?
__________________
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 30th June 2019, 10:03 AM   #455
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You're hopeless. How does this remotely answer the question: "How does an innocent Raffaele know that the police have caught the right person," when they caught Rudy Guede?
It's hypothectical isn't it because an 'innocent Raffaele' wouldn't give a **** what Guede said about him.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 11:04 AM   #456
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I don't recall using the word "vacated" to describe the procedure Italy will follow under its laws to dismiss the calunnia charges against Amanda Knox or to acquit her of those charges. However, some have used it and, in effect, the charges may be vacated by the Italian legal procedure actually used.

The legal procedure to dismiss or acquit a final conviction requires a "revision" proceeding which must be initiated in an Italian Court of Appeal by a request for revision made by a prosecutor or by the convicted person or by both. The revision legal procedure, including compensation for miscarriage of justice, is defined under Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Articles 629 through 647.

Possibly, an alternative path is the Italian pardon procedure.

In the case that a revision results is the dismissal of charges, those charges no longer exist and the person's conviction obviously no longer exists.

In the case that a revision results in the acquittal on the charges, the record of the formerly convicted person is changed to that of an acquittal. In Amanda's case, based on the ECHR judgment, the specification of the acquittal (the specification is a necessary element under Italian law) would almost certainly be that the crime of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba did not occur. The reason for that is that the crime of calunnia requires, as an element, that the person convicted knowingly and voluntarily falsely accused another of a crime. The final ECHR judgment in the case of Amanda Knox v. Italy demolishes this required element.
I've now found it from your post 356. Apologies if I've misunderstood anything.

"The result of revision proceedings that fairly evaluate the evidence and how it was obtained, in accordance with the ECHR final judgment, must either vacate (dismiss the charges) or acquit (find that the crime did not occur) in Amanda's case."

IMO only a decision that concluded that the charges no longer exist, however that is defined, can be acceptable. How can it be anything else? You can hardly have the charges still existing but having been committed by others unknown. The bottom line is that the calunnia has to be expunged from the record for Italy to fulfil its obligations.

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 30th June 2019, 12:22 PM   #457
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's hypothectical isn't it because an 'innocent Raffaele' wouldn't give a **** what Guede said about him.
Sigh. Can't even spell hypothetical right.

Lurking readers can themselves figure out quickly what's so hopelessly wrong about this answer.
__________________
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 30th June 2019, 12:25 PM   #458
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Think hard. Why would someone be protective of someone who was at a murder scene.

Penny dropped yet?
Why would someone who was not involved in an unpremeditated and spontaneous rape and murder (as ruled by all the courts) in another part of a house (as ruled by Massei) need to protect that person? According to Massei, the two were busy having sex in Amanda's room when Guede attacked Kercher alone. This allegedly turned on RS and AK even more and they made a choice to "engage in extreme evil". This is where you have AK "egging on" Guede. Of course, this was all straight from Massei's and your imagination as no evidence supports it. Even so, as they had not attacked Kercher, there is no reason for them to 'protect' Guede. Unless, of course, you go into yet another unsupported flight of guilt based fantasy such as:

Quote:
Here's a clue: Amanda is someone who is out for herself.
An assumption based on no evidence but solely upon your own deeply warped bias. On the other hand, there are the statements of friends, teachers, and fellow students who, unlike you, actually knew her and who described Amanda as being the direct opposite of "someone who is out for herself". She was even given her school's highest award for not only being an excellent student but for demonstrating the highest personal standards.


Quote:
The same person who grassed on Philomena and Laura as smoking pot, Giacomo as growing it, Raff as having blood on his hand
After years of banging on about all the 'lies' Amanda told, you now criticize her for telling the truth! Gotta love it!

Quote:
her little sister Deana being stupid and jealous of her, her dying grandma as being like a collapsed mine,
Cite evidence for either of these claims. Unless you do, I can only assume that, yet again, you are simply making things up out of whole cloth.

Quote:
there really isn't anybody she wouldn't wouldn't throw under the bus.
From the above disproved and unsupported claims, it's more than a stretch to claim this.


Quote:
She didn't name Guede for one very obvious reason: she was there, as the courts state, when "the young Meredith Kercher was murdered and washed her blood off her hands''. This is stated clearly in the final judgement.
Sigh. For the umpteenth time, no evidence was ever presented in court that Knox washed blood off her hands. That was an assumption unsupported by forensic or any other evidence. You've been challenged to produce any evidence of this and have repeatedly failed to do so...and for a very good reason: there is none.

Also 'stated clearly in the final judgment' is this: RS and AK 'acquitted for not having committed the act'.
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 30th June 2019, 01:41 PM   #459
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,016
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
I've now found it from your post 356. Apologies if I've misunderstood anything.

"The result of revision proceedings that fairly evaluate the evidence and how it was obtained, in accordance with the ECHR final judgment, must either vacate (dismiss the charges) or acquit (find that the crime did not occur) in Amanda's case."

IMO only a decision that concluded that the charges no longer exist, however that is defined, can be acceptable. How can it be anything else? You can hardly have the charges still existing but having been committed by others unknown. The bottom line is that the calunnia has to be expunged from the record for Italy to fulfil its obligations.

Hoots
Thanks for finding that! I used "vacate" there as a synonym for the term I have seen in Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa's book translating the Italian CPP into English, which is "dismiss". The editors are professors of Italian procedural law (Gialuz and Luparia) and a professor of English translation for law (Scarpa). Thus, I believe that "dismissal" is the best word to use for the Italian procedure resulting from a successful revision.

Here are some Italian laws from the CPP relating to dismissal and some definitions based on English or US law.

Book VII {of the CPP} Trial

Title I Actions prior to trial

Article 469 Dismissal prior to trial

1. ...if prosecution should not have been started or must not continue or if the offense is extinguished {the statute of limitations has passed} and it is not necessary to hold a trial to ascertain it, the judge shall deliver an unappealable judgment of non-prosecution specifying the cause in the operative part. ....

Title III Judgment

Chapter II Decision
Section I Judgment of dismissal

Article 529 Judgment of non-prosecution

1. If the criminal prosecution should not have been initiated or continued, the judge shall deliver a judgment of non-prosecution mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment.

2. The judge shall follow the same procedure in case of insufficient or contradictory proof of the existence of a requirement for prosecution.

Article 530 Judgment of Acquittal
.... {Text omitted because this has been repeated many times in this forum.}

Article 531 Declaration of extinguishment of the offence

1. ... if the offence is extinguished, the judge shall deliver a judgment of non-prosecution, mentioning the cause in the operative part.

2. The judge shall follow the same procedure if there are doubts regarding the cause {? proof} for extinguishing an offence.

Title IV Revision

Article 631 Limitations to revision

1. Under penalty of inadmissibility of the request, the arguments underlying the request for revision must be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed under Articles 529, 530, or 531.

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation; ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, F. Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014


VACATE

To annul; to cancel or rescind ; to render an act void; as, to vacate an entry of record, or a judgment

Source: https://thelawdictionary.org/vacate/

Vacate Law and Legal Definition

In the context of a court order or decision, vacate means to overrule or void. A decision may be vacated for error, however, the error must be significant enough that it affected the outcome. Vacating a conviction for a crime sometimes refers to when a court determines you have met certain conditions and orders the conviction removed from your criminal history record.

Source: https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vacate/


DISMISSAL

The dismissal of an action, suit, motion, etc., is an order or judgment finally disposing of it by sending it out of court, though without a trial of the issues involved.

Source: https://thelawdictionary.org/dismissal/

Dismiss

In a court setting, a judge may dismiss or throw out all or a portion of a plaintiff's lawsuit without further evidence or testimony upon being persuaded that the plaintiff has not and cannot prove the case. This judgment may be made before or at anytime during the trial. The judge may independently decide to dismiss or may do so in response to a motion by the defendant. Also, the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable, or if trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim. A defendant may also be dismissed from a lawsuit, meaning the suit is dropped against that party.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dismiss


Dismissed With Prejudice Law and Legal Definition

In criminal prosecutions, dismissal with prejudice bars the government from prosecuting the accused later on the same charge. A dismissal with prejudice is made in response to a motion to the court by the defendant or by the court sua sponte {on the court's own motion}, if the accused is deprived of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Source: https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/di...ith-prejudice/
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 30th June 2019, 02:06 PM   #460
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Think hard. Lumumba pining away in his prison cell was overjoyed when Guede was caught and he was released. He didn't start fretting about 'what Rudy might say about me'.
You are assuming that Lumumba was even aware of Guede while he was in jail. Police identified Guede as a suspect on Monday Nov. 19 according to the BBC*. This suggests Lumumba first heard about Guede's existence on the 20th, the day Guede was arrested which was the same day Lumumba was released. He obviously didn't need to worry what Guede might say about him as his release with Guede's arrest and his verified alibi demonstrate.


Quote:
You would have thought the 'innocent' Raff would be ecstatic the police now had the 'right' person.

The chin dribblers think he was right to be concerned that Rudy might recognise him 'as he is a liar', they claim.
From Raff's Nov. 20 Prison diary:

Quote:
The real murderer of this incredible story was finally caught today. He is a 22 year old Ivorian [and] they found him in Germany. I saw father happy and smiling, but I am not 100% calm at the moment because I fear that he might invent strange things.
As it turned out, Raff had every right to worry that Guede would 'invent' things because that's exactly what he did. He went from being attacked by an unknown brown haired, Napapijri/beanie with a red stripe wearing, left-handed knife wielder to accusing Raffaele of being that attacker. Yes, I'd say Raffaele had every right to fear Guede making crap up.

*(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7104507.stm)
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 30th June 2019, 02:10 PM   #461
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,016
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Thanks for finding that! I used "vacate" there as a synonym for the term I have seen in Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa's book translating the Italian CPP into English, which is "dismiss". The editors are professors of Italian procedural law (Gialuz and Luparia) and a professor of English translation for law (Scarpa). Thus, I believe that "dismissal" is the best word to use for the Italian procedure resulting from a successful revision.

Here are some Italian laws from the CPP relating to dismissal and some definitions based on English or US law.

Book VII {of the CPP} Trial

Title I Actions prior to trial

Article 469 Dismissal prior to trial

1. ...if prosecution should not have been started or must not continue or if the offense is extinguished {the statute of limitations has passed} and it is not necessary to hold a trial to ascertain it, the judge shall deliver an unappealable judgment of non-prosecution specifying the cause in the operative part. ....

Title III Judgment

Chapter II Decision
Section I Judgment of dismissal

Article 529 Judgment of non-prosecution

1. If the criminal prosecution should not have been initiated or continued, the judge shall deliver a judgment of non-prosecution mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment.

2. The judge shall follow the same procedure in case of insufficient or contradictory proof of the existence of a requirement for prosecution.

Article 530 Judgment of Acquittal
.... {Text omitted because this has been repeated many times in this forum.}

Article 531 Declaration of extinguishment of the offence

1. ... if the offence is extinguished, the judge shall deliver a judgment of non-prosecution, mentioning the cause in the operative part.

2. The judge shall follow the same procedure if there are doubts regarding the cause {? proof} for extinguishing an offence.

Title IV Revision

Article 631 Limitations to revision

1. Under penalty of inadmissibility of the request, the arguments underlying the request for revision must be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed under Articles 529, 530, or 531.

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation; ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, F. Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014


VACATE

To annul; to cancel or rescind ; to render an act void; as, to vacate an entry of record, or a judgment

Source: https://thelawdictionary.org/vacate/

Vacate Law and Legal Definition

In the context of a court order or decision, vacate means to overrule or void. A decision may be vacated for error, however, the error must be significant enough that it affected the outcome. Vacating a conviction for a crime sometimes refers to when a court determines you have met certain conditions and orders the conviction removed from your criminal history record.

Source: https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vacate/


DISMISSAL

The dismissal of an action, suit, motion, etc., is an order or judgment finally disposing of it by sending it out of court, though without a trial of the issues involved.

Source: https://thelawdictionary.org/dismissal/

Dismiss

In a court setting, a judge may dismiss or throw out all or a portion of a plaintiff's lawsuit without further evidence or testimony upon being persuaded that the plaintiff has not and cannot prove the case. This judgment may be made before or at anytime during the trial. The judge may independently decide to dismiss or may do so in response to a motion by the defendant. Also, the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable, or if trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim. A defendant may also be dismissed from a lawsuit, meaning the suit is dropped against that party.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dismiss


Dismissed With Prejudice Law and Legal Definition

In criminal prosecutions, dismissal with prejudice bars the government from prosecuting the accused later on the same charge. A dismissal with prejudice is made in response to a motion to the court by the defendant or by the court sua sponte {on the court's own motion}, if the accused is deprived of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Source: https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/di...ith-prejudice/

To be even more clear, when I write that I believe Amanda Knox will be or should be dismissed or acquitted by a revision procedure for her conviction for calunnia (a conviction now found in a final judgment of the ECHR to have been in violation of international law in several ways), I mean that the revision judgment should be "dismissal because the case should not have been prosecuted" in accordance with CPP Article 529, or "acquittal because the crime of calunnia was not committed" in accordance with CPP Article 530.

Some have suggested that there could be a dismissal on the grounds that the statute of limitations has now passed (extinguishment, CPP Article 531) for an alleged crime of calunnia that occurred in November, 2007. However, the revision focus is on the crime and trial in the times they had originally taken place. To hold otherwise, almost any crime with a long sentence, short of murder, would be subject to revision for extinguishment. In fact, the initial article of the CPP defining revision, Article 629, explicitly state that "revision of judgements of conviction ... may be performed at any time and in the cases established by law in favour of the convicted persons, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished."

The last sentence means that someone who has completed his or her sentence (such as Amanda) may request revision, and that even if the statute of limitations has now passed, but the person had been convicted when it had not, the convicted person may request revision. If the person had been convicted but can show that the conviction occurred after the statute of limitations had passed, that would be grounds for requesting and receiving revision in accordance with CPP Articles 631 and 531.

Last edited by Numbers; 30th June 2019 at 02:18 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 30th June 2019, 02:24 PM   #462
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's hypothectical isn't it because an 'innocent Raffaele' wouldn't give a **** what Guede said about him.
Really? Because the police/prosecution wouldn't (and didn't) use any of what Guede said about Raffaele against him, right? Micheli didn't use it when he wrote in his MR:

Quote:
The one responsible, according to what the defendant was telling him, was a young Italian, and to the question if it had been Mr SOLLECITO (whose picture was in all the newspapers, and certainly downloadable from the Internet), he had replied in vague terms, more or less with the phrase “boh, non lo so, penso di si” [meh, I wouldn’t know, I think so], though repeating again, on the question being put again, that “I think so”.
For you to claim that an 'innocent' Raff had no reason to fear Guede making things up is ludicrous.
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 30th June 2019, 02:29 PM   #463
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ah...I thought that's what you meant but I wanted to be sure. Along that same thought re money payouts, there is a person in another forum I belong to who insists he believes Knox is innocent yet never misses an opportunity to disparage her on a personal level...especially her sex life. One thing he attacks her on is her failure to pay Lumumba. I've pointed out to him several times that no lawyer would advise her pay up before the calunnia conviction had played itself out through the ECHR and a possible revision which could annul the conviction. Try and get the money back if the conviction, and thus the monetary judgment to Lumumba, is reversed!
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Have you ever thought of going into law?

I hate to tell you this but the Calunnia conviction was final as of Chieffi.
Have you ever thought of taking a reading comprehension course? I never said the calunnia conviction was not final. See the highlighted part above.
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 30th June 2019, 02:33 PM   #464
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's hypothectical isn't it because an 'innocent Raffaele' wouldn't give a **** what Guede said about him.

W.O.W.

You seriously think this?

Imagine for a moment, Vixen, that you were sitting in a prison cell having been accused and imprisoned for being involved in a murder, and that the whole world was aware of that. Imagine that in fact you had nothing to do with the murder. And imagine that another person was now arrested in connection with the murder.

CAN YOU NOT POSSIBLY SEE, Vixen, that in this situation you would have every reason to fear that this newly-arrested person might seek to say (to utilise one of your "techniques") "It woz Vixen wot really done it, Guv", in order to try to optimise his own outcome?

Wow. Appalling lack of critical thinking and objectivity. Wow.
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 30th June 2019, 02:38 PM   #465
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
FIFY


You still appear entirely ignorant of the fact that factually-innocent people very often do not have independently-verifiable alibis.

In fact, you still appear to be under the logical delusion that since a) factually-guilty people never (by definition) have alibis, therefore b) not having an alibi is indicative of factual guilt.

May I recommend some reading on logic, boolean algebra, and jurispridence. The British Library opens at 9.30am tomorrow, I believe.
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 30th June 2019, 02:42 PM   #466
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Late to the party, as usual

Well, Guede has been on day release and has this "job" of playing the intern for his "new friends" since late 2017...

Primo giorno di lavoro fuori dal carcere, Rudy Guede arriva in bicicletta

So the only interesting part of the Sun article would be this:

Quote:
"A source close to the Kercher family said: “We accept he has to be freed at some point but it is upsetting to see him outside now.”
But since one of the authors is Nick Pisa, I guess the "source close to the Kercher family" is either the landlord of a pub Mr Kercher once had a pint in, or someone at the place Mrs Kercher shops her groceries...
But it also could be a random passerby asked for his or her opinion in the street in front of the family home

I kind of love, what the Daily Mail made of it:
Meredith Kercher's killer is OUT of prison: He is seen cycling to work on day release despite serving 16-year sentence for murdering the British student

Apart from the 47 stab wounds their article is factual and has this gem of truth in it:

Quote:
"Guede sought to pin the blame on Meredith's American flatmate, Amanda Knox, and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito."
I hope the Mail will use this new "summing up of the case" in the future:

Quote:
"Officers discovered Kercher's throat was slashed and she had been sexually assaulted.

Knox and her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were arrested and later convicted of murder and sexual assault in 2009.

The couple maintained their innocence, insisting that they had spent the evening together at Sollecito's home watching a film, smoking marijuana and being intimate.

In 2011 the Perugia Court of Appeal acquitted the pair of the more serious charges, though upholding a minor conviction for Knox.

But in a flip-flop series of court decisions in her absence, her murder conviction was reinstated and then finally overturned again in 2015.

In the final ruling judges cited flaws in the investigation and said there was a lack of evidence to prove their wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt, including a lack of 'biological traces' connecting them to the crime."
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 02:46 PM   #467
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Vixen
It's hypothectical isn't it because an 'innocent Raffaele' wouldn't give a **** what Guede said about him.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
W.O.W.

You seriously think this?

Imagine for a moment, Vixen, that you were sitting in a prison cell having been accused and imprisoned for being involved in a murder, and that the whole world was aware of that. Imagine that in fact you had nothing to do with the murder. And imagine that another person was now arrested in connection with the murder.

CAN YOU NOT POSSIBLY SEE, Vixen, that in this situation you would have every reason to fear that this newly-arrested person might seek to say (to utilise one of your "techniques") "It woz Vixen wot really done it, Guv", in order to try to optimise his own outcome?

Wow. Appalling lack of critical thinking and objectivity. Wow.
Aside from this, the 2014 Nencini convicting court in Florence demonstrated that Raffaele had every right to worry about what the real murderer, Rudy Guede, said.

Nencini's "theory of the crime", and Nencini's opinion as to "motive", had one and only one source.

Rudy Guede. (Ignore for a minute that Guede's "testimony" had never been subject to cross-examination....)

No one else other than Rudy Guede said that there'd been a dispute over rent money. Nencini cited that as motive, even though the prosecutor in his court (Crini) had said the dispute had been about household cleanliness, and even though the 2013 Supreme Court had annulled the original acquittals partly because it said that the "sex game gone wrong" motive had not been properly examined.

So why would an innocent Raffaele "give a *****" what Rudy said? Because the clueless convicting courts cited him!!!!
__________________
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 30th June 2019, 02:54 PM   #468
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
W.O.W.

You seriously think this?

Imagine for a moment, Vixen, that you were sitting in a prison cell having been accused and imprisoned for being involved in a murder, and that the whole world was aware of that. Imagine that in fact you had nothing to do with the murder. And imagine that another person was now arrested in connection with the murder.

CAN YOU NOT POSSIBLY SEE, Vixen, that in this situation you would have every reason to fear that this newly-arrested person might seek to say (to utilise one of your "techniques") "It woz Vixen wot really done it, Guv", in order to try to optimise his own outcome?

Wow. Appalling lack of critical thinking and objectivity. Wow.
I wonder if she's ever thought of going into law?
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 30th June 2019, 02:55 PM   #469
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Late to the party, as usual

Well, Guede has been on day release and has this "job" of playing the intern for his "new friends" since late 2017...

Primo giorno di lavoro fuori dal carcere, Rudy Guede arriva in bicicletta

So the only interesting part of the Sun article would be this:



But since one of the authors is Nick Pisa, I guess the "source close to the Kercher family" is either the landlord of a pub Mr Kercher once had a pint in, or someone at the place Mrs Kercher shops her groceries...
But it also could be a random passerby asked for his or her opinion in the street in front of the family home

I kind of love, what the Daily Mail made of it:
Meredith Kercher's killer is OUT of prison: He is seen cycling to work on day release despite serving 16-year sentence for murdering the British student

Apart from the 47 stab wounds their article is factual and has this gem of truth in it:



I hope the Mail will use this new "summing up of the case" in the future:

Ahhhh but Pisa falls into the same trap of ignorance as most of the mental midgets in the pro-guilt community. See how he writes:

"(the Supreme Court) said there was a lack of evidence to prove their wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt"

What I think Pisa believes, and what I think he wishes to convey to readers, and what the pro-guilt nutters desperately need to believe, is that this either means or implies that somehow Knox and Sollecito got away with it "by the skin of their teeth" - i.e. that the "mountain" of evidence of their guilt only just failed to satisfy the BARD standard.

In fact, however, it actually means nothing of the sort of course. Under Italian law (and indeed under criminal justice law in most liberal democracies), courts are solely required to determine whether guilt has been proven BARD. If it has, then the court must convict. If not, the court must acquit. And if a court finds that guilt has not been proven BARD, this covers every single point on the spectrum from "only just insufficient to meet the BARD standard" all the way down to "absolute zero evidence of guilt".

But outside of laughing at their prejudices, ignorance and low intellectual capacity, I say we should let pro-guilt nutters shout as loud as they like about this "insufficient evidence" misdirection: their misinterpretation is as irrelevant as they are, and Knox and Sollecito (and the people about whom they actually care) know the real score.....
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 30th June 2019, 02:59 PM   #470
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Quote:
"Guede sought to pin the blame on Meredith's American flatmate, Amanda Knox, and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito."
But Raff had absolutely no reason to fear Guede inventing things about him! I'd say "You just can't make this kind of crap up, " but apparently Vixen can (and did)!
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 30th June 2019, 03:09 PM   #471
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
But isn't it odd that we don't hear from Maresca, the Kerchers' lawyer, about how this repeated release of Guede, the convicted rapist and murderer of Meredith Kercher, is disrespectful to the Kerchers?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why don't you read the article, in which it says the Kerchers are extremely upset.
Reading comprehension problems again? Number's question clearly refers to Maresca, not to some unidentified "source close to the Kerchers" as the article states.
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 30th June 2019, 03:18 PM   #472
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ahhhh but Pisa falls into the same trap of ignorance as most of the mental midgets in the pro-guilt community. See how he writes:

"(the Supreme Court) said there was a lack of evidence to prove their wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt"

What I think Pisa believes, and what I think he wishes to convey to readers, and what the pro-guilt nutters desperately need to believe, is that this either means or implies that somehow Knox and Sollecito got away with it "by the skin of their teeth" - i.e. that the "mountain" of evidence of their guilt only just failed to satisfy the BARD standard.

In fact, however, it actually means nothing of the sort of course. Under Italian law (and indeed under criminal justice law in most liberal democracies), courts are solely required to determine whether guilt has been proven BARD. If it has, then the court must convict. If not, the court must acquit. And if a court finds that guilt has not been proven BARD, this covers every single point on the spectrum from "only just insufficient to meet the BARD standard" all the way down to "absolute zero evidence of guilt".

But outside of laughing at their prejudices, ignorance and low intellectual capacity, I say we should let pro-guilt nutters shout as loud as they like about this "insufficient evidence" misdirection: their misinterpretation is as irrelevant as they are, and Knox and Sollecito (and the people about whom they actually care) know the real score.....
The stupid "word games" about "acquittal vs exoneration", and "But what about [enter anything from the 10.000 pages of evidence to "**** happens" here] is all the few remaining PGPs have left.

Well, PM Mignini will stick to paint himself as the "humble public servant just doing his job" I guess...
Caso Meredith, Amanda vuole incontrare Mignini, il Pm dice no e ammette: "Rifarei tutto. Ed ecco il mio rimpianto..."...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 03:42 PM   #473
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
"Amanda was 20 years old, she was a young girl and I understand what she must have been through, but there is a woman of her age who will never tell her story again ". “
http://www.perugiatoday.it/cronaca/a...rimpianti.html


See what Mignini did there? He professes some kind of sympathy for Amanda (Gee, see what a fair guy I am?) but then immediately implies that Meredith was silenced (killed) by Amanda.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 30th June 2019 at 03:43 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 30th June 2019, 03:44 PM   #474
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,016
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Reading comprehension problems again? Number's question clearly refers to Maresca, not to some unidentified "source close to the Kerchers" as the article states.
Why would someone making such a simple and noncontroversial statement need to remain unnamed? How do we know that the Sun is not simply making up this alleged source, since it is an unnamed person?

On the other hand, this is what the Sun wrote on 25 May 2016:

"American Knox, 28 – dubbed ‘Foxy Knoxy’ – said she was “upset” after hearing news of his {Guede's} temporary release.

She said: “I’m upset by the fact that Guede has never shown any remorse and hope that whoever granted him permission [to take temporary release] did so only as part of a social reintegration programme.” "


But the Sun went on to show that it could be quite incomplete and misleading with the next sentence in the article:

"Earlier this month it was revealed that Knox has won the legal right to sue Italy over the ‘unfair trial’ that saw her wrongly convicted of killing Meredith."


Those reading that sentence would have no idea that it was a reference to the ECHR's Communication to Italy that formalized the transformation of the application of Amanda Knox against Italy to the case Knox v. Italy, and was not related to the wrongful non-final convictions for killing Meredith Kercher, but to the coercive interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007 and the wrongful final conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia.

One can only conclude that the reporters and publishers of the Sun and the other tabloids, such as the Daily Mail, have abysmally low standards for accuracy.

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/ne...ood-behaviour/

And let's get back to the question - why does Maresca criticize Amanda Knox, definitively acquitted as not having committed Meredith Kercher's murder, for visiting Italy to give a presentation on "trial by media" to the Italy Innocence Project - but not Rudy Guede, the sole murderer of Meredith Kercher, for being on day release and "smirking" on his bicycle?

Last edited by Numbers; 30th June 2019 at 03:52 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 30th June 2019, 04:00 PM   #475
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,016
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"Amanda was 20 years old, she was a young girl and I understand what she must have been through, but there is a woman of her age who will never tell her story again ". “
http://www.perugiatoday.it/cronaca/a...rimpianti.html


See what Mignini did there? He professes some kind of sympathy for Amanda (Gee, see what a fair guy I am?) but then immediately implies that Meredith was silenced (killed) by Amanda.
In the article, Mignini also blames the medical examiner for not taking the body temperature to fix the time of Merdith's death.

Too bad Mignini chooses to forget the other evidence of Meredith's time of death: the attempted or aborted telephone calls and the digestion timing evidence.

Of course, in the Netflix documentary, it was Mignini who said he was a real Sherlock Holmes.

Last edited by Numbers; 30th June 2019 at 04:01 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 30th June 2019, 04:09 PM   #476
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,449
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Think hard. Why would someone be protective of someone who was at a murder scene.

Penny dropped yet?

Here's a clue: Amanda is someone who is out for herself. The same person who grassed on Philomena and Laura as smoking pot, Giacomo as growing it, Raff as having blood on his hand, her little sister Deana being stupid and jealous of her, her dying grandma as being like a collapsed mine, there really isn't anybody she wouldn't wouldn't throw under the bus.

She didn't name Guede for one very obvious reason: she was there, as the courts state, when "the young Meredith Kercher was murdered and washed her blood off her hands''. This is stated clearly in the final judgement.
Except in the skype call the police recorded Guede stated definitively Amanda was not there. This becomes an official first out of the blocks crime narrative.
These first statements are glittering gold that tarnishes with every subsequent iteration.
Samson 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 30th June 2019, 04:13 PM   #477
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Why would someone making such a simple and noncontroversial statement need to remain unnamed? How do we know that the Sun is not simply making up this alleged source, since it is an unnamed person?

On the other hand, this is what the Sun wrote on 25 May 2016:

"American Knox, 28 – dubbed ‘Foxy Knoxy’ – said she was “upset” after hearing news of his {Guede's} temporary release.

She said: “I’m upset by the fact that Guede has never shown any remorse and hope that whoever granted him permission [to take temporary release] did so only as part of a social reintegration programme.” "


But the Sun went on to show that it could be quite incomplete and misleading with the next sentence in the article:

"Earlier this month it was revealed that Knox has won the legal right to sue Italy over the ‘unfair trial’ that saw her wrongly convicted of killing Meredith."


Those reading that sentence would have no idea that it was a reference to the ECHR's Communication to Italy that formalized the transformation of the application of Amanda Knox against Italy to the case Knox v. Italy, and was not related to the wrongful non-final convictions for killing Meredith Kercher, but to the coercive interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007 and the wrongful final conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia.

One can only conclude that the reporters and publishers of the Sun and the other tabloids, such as the Daily Mail, have abysmally low standards for accuracy.

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/ne...ood-behaviour/

And let's get back to the question - why does Maresca criticize Amanda Knox, definitively acquitted as not having committed Meredith Kercher's murder, for visiting Italy to give a presentation on "trial by media" to the Italy Innocence Project - but not Rudy Guede, the sole murderer of Meredith Kercher, for being on day release and "smirking" on his bicycle?
Just for the record:
The Sun,
Daily Mail
La Repubblica
...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 04:13 PM   #478
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
In the article, Mignini also blames the medical examiner for not taking the body temperature to fix the time of Merdith's death.

Too bad Mignini chooses to forget the other evidence of Meredith's time of death: the attempted or aborted telephone calls and the digestion timing evidence.

Of course, in the Netflix documentary, it was Mignini who said he was a real Sherlock Holmes.


Yes. Plus, if my memory serves me correctly, wasn't it Mignini himself who would not allow Lalli to take body temperature earlier on the afternoon of the 2nd?

(Of course, it's also entirely possible that various self-serving lies accounts of what happened in and around the cottage from 1pm on 2nd November found their way into circulation. For evidence that this did indeed happen, we need look no further than the whole lamp-in-Kercher's-room debacle, or where the postal police did and did not walk in Kercher's room, or just how properly-preserved (or *ahem* otherwise) the ground underneath Romanelli's broken window was.....)
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 30th June 2019, 04:24 PM   #479
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,206
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Just for the record:
The Sun,
Daily Mail
La Repubblica
...


Looks like this perhaps comes therefore from a press wire article that's simply been reproduced across various publications.

Regardless, the mass media have repeatedly, over the years, been stultifyingly ill-informed about this case. Granted, it's a complex case. And it's definitely also fair to say that a superficial reading of what was presented in the Massei trial would strongly indicate the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. But of course that was/is before every single one of those superficially-strong datum points of evidence was shown clearly to be either an invention, a misinterpretation, or otherwise fundamentally unreliable/non-credible.

And it's also fair to say two further things: firstly, the whole narrative - of a pretty young American female student on a study year in Italy going somehow psychotic in league with her boyfriend to torture and stab her "mild-mannered" English female housemate - is manna from heaven for pretty much all areas of the media (particularly in the UK), so this was a narrative that they were more than ready to swallow uncritically and regurgitate for their prurient audience; and secondly, it's almost always the "safe" practice of the media to defer heavily to the prosecution version of events, since a) this offers an excellent defence against any potential defamation, and b) this also serves to make prosecutors and other authority agencies/figures more ready to supply further information about this case and any potential future cases to the media bodies in question.
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 30th June 2019, 04:26 PM   #480
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
In the article, Mignini also blames the medical examiner for not taking the body temperature to fix the time of Merdith's death.

Too bad Mignini chooses to forget the other evidence of Meredith's time of death: the attempted or aborted telephone calls and the digestion timing evidence.

Of course, in the Netflix documentary, it was Mignini who said he was a real Sherlock Holmes.
Don't forget the fact that Meredith was fully dressed, including her jacket, when she was attacked a full two hours (according to the prosecution) after she went home at 9:00 PM stating she was tired. One of the Brit girls stated they had agreed that they were going to bed right away (cited earlier). Even Guede put himself there by 8:30 and hearing Meredith scream about 9:20. Why would he use this timeline? Because he was sticking as closely to the actual timing of events because truth is easier to remember than lies and someone might be able to place him at the cottage then.
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
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 03:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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