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 12th June 2019, 03:56 PM   #41
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.
It has never been proved that it was a false alibi. As you've been told a many, many times, Knox placing herself at the cottage that night became a judicial fact upon the definitive calunnia conviction. Marasca had no choice but to deal with that but even then he said that IF she came into contact with blood it happened AFTER the murder and no one disputes she was at the cottage AFTER the murder. Sollecito has never been proved to be outside his apartment that night. An unsubstantiated alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi.
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 12th June 2019, 03:57 PM   #42
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,379
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.
No it's not. What are you talking about?
__________________
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 12th June 2019, 04:03 PM   #43
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, because Raff dropped her in it..?
ER, no. Raff saying she went out that night would not have made any difference. She could have still blamed Guede. After all, she had already pointed out his feces and bloody footprint to the police. And, if guilty, she would have known they'd find his bloody shoe prints in the hallway and bedroom.
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 12th June 2019, 04:08 PM   #44
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.
LOL. Um...no. Say a man gives a false alibi as to his location when his wife was murdered because he was at his mistress' house. He lies because he's afraid that the police will find out he was cheating on his wife and it will make him look guilty. The police then find the DNA and fingerprints of the next door neighbor in the murder room and on the victim's body. Are they going to arrest the husband or the neighbor?
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 12th June 2019, 05:01 PM   #45
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,379
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Sollecito has never been proved to be outside his apartment that night. An unsubstantiated alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi.
Vixen should deal with her litany of claims that have proven to be bogus:
That the reason Mignini lost his defamation lawsuit against Sollecito & Gumbel was because "within a week" Sollecito & Gumbel would apologize to Mignini. Bogus claim.

That Knox was ineligible for international travel because she was a felon. Two bogus claims in one.

That the picture Vixen posted of the window below Filomena's proved that it had no bars on it. Bogus claim. Vixen posted a pic of a window **with** bars covering it.
You'd think Vixen would clean up these bogus messes of hers before simply repeating other bogus claims.

Like a false alibi being as valid as DNA! Hoots.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 12th June 2019 at 05:03 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 05:09 PM   #46
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
If we started listing all the bogus claims, we'd end up in Continuation 35...or more.

I wonder if Amanda flew to Italy today in a private chartered jet?
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 12th June 2019, 06:29 PM   #47
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Worse than the guilters?

"I apologize for using you for my entertainment."

https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-y...PoV1EOKKWOsxVY

Fits all of us......
The difference is that the PIP are respectful to her and Raffaele. We don't call her nasty names, call her a liar, a slut, a killer, a psychopath, etc. Can't say the same for the PGP.
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 12th June 2019, 11:50 PM   #48
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I bet there were many people on the night of the murder who couldn't provide a proven alibi. Any person who was home alone that night reading or watching TV and who neither made nor received any phone calls between 9 PM and midnight wouldn't have an alibi. Come to think of it, Nara Capezalli was home alone that night. Can she prove she didn't kill Meredith? Just because someone doesn't have an alibi, doesn't mean they committed the crime.
I tend to agree with that. I think that the Mignini and the cops had a pre-existing template in place by the night of the interrogations, with the theories of multiple attackers and the staged break-in already in place. All that needed to happen was to transfer the cop's protection of Rudy onto suitably soft targets. Perugia may have been full of potentially soft targets, all you need to do is wreck their computers and subject them to a totally hypothetical case with, as Mignini and Vixen argues, no motive required and your potentially in business. it just so happened that K&S were suitably soft targets.

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 13th June 2019, 02:48 AM   #49
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,190
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Worse than the guilters?

"I apologize for using you for my entertainment."

https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-y...PoV1EOKKWOsxVY

Fits all of us......
The guilters are obsessed with Amanda Knox. I'm obsessed with the guilters. A subtle distinction. I wish I didn't have 10 volumes of data in my head about Amanda's every recorded moment in Italy, but unfortunately it was necessary for my quest to understand why certain people think the stripped naked girl lying dead with her throat slit in a forced entry apartment surrounded exclusively by the bloody prints of a male burglar whose DNA was found in the rapekit and had a criminal history of forced entry trespassing and carrying a knife was actually the victim of her American flatmate who had no connection with the burglar. BTW my quest remains unfulfilled.
bagels 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 13th June 2019, 05:32 AM   #50
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,015
https://www.today.com/video/amanda-k...al-61828165792

"Amanda Knox is returning to Italy for the first time since she was convicted, imprisoned and ultimately acquitted in the 2007 murder of her British roommate. She was invited to a conference to speak about how the media changed her life. NBC’s Kelly Cobiella reports for TODAY.June 13, 2019"
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 13th June 2019, 07:49 AM   #51
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,379
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
The guilters are obsessed with Amanda Knox. I'm obsessed with the guilters. A subtle distinction. I wish I didn't have 10 volumes of data in my head about Amanda's every recorded moment in Italy, but unfortunately it was necessary for my quest to understand why certain people think......
I'm obsessed, too, but I've only got 2.5 volumes of data. In my travels I've met dudes/dudettes who have 25 to 30 volumes. Those people are REALLY nuts!

None of them are guilter-nutters. Seriously. Instead, the guilter-nutters rely (or used to) on a coupl'a dozen talking points, endlessly repeated regardless of that little thing called "evidence". (Granted, 2 or 3 of the now departed nutters had volumes of dietrology.....)

But, seriously, I should apologize for using them as entertainment. I've PM'ed with a good cross-section of them, and have discovered things which I would not want applied to me. So suffice it to say that one person's tragedy is still no excuse to vilify some internet stranger.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 13th June 2019 at 07:50 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 13th June 2019, 09:36 AM   #52
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,015
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'm obsessed, too, but I've only got 2.5 volumes of data. In my travels I've met dudes/dudettes who have 25 to 30 volumes. Those people are REALLY nuts!

None of them are guilter-nutters. Seriously. Instead, the guilter-nutters rely (or used to) on a coupl'a dozen talking points, endlessly repeated regardless of that little thing called "evidence". (Granted, 2 or 3 of the now departed nutters had volumes of dietrology.....)

But, seriously, I should apologize for using them as entertainment. I've PM'ed with a good cross-section of them, and have discovered things which I would not want applied to me. So suffice it to say that one person's tragedy is still no excuse to vilify some internet stranger.
The most satisfying obsession must be for the ECHR

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/S...d_Conv_ENG.pdf

"Simplified version of selected articles from the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols

Summary of the preamble

The member governments of the Council of Europe work towards peace and greater unity based on human rights and fundamental freedoms. With this Convention they decide to take the first steps to enforce many of the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1 ‐ Obligation to respect human rights

States must ensure that everyone has the rights stated in this Convention.

....

Article 3 ‐ Prohibition of torture

No one ever has the right to hurt you or torture you. Even in detention your human dignity has to be respected.

....

Article 6 ‐ Right to a fair trial

You have the right to a fair trial before an unbiased and independent judge. If you are accused of having committed a crime, you are innocent until proved guilty. You have the right to be assisted by a lawyer {from the first interrogation} who has to be paid by the state if you are poor. {You have the right to a fair interpreter if you do not understand the language of the police and courts.}"

Above are some simplified versions of the important Convention articles for the case Knox v. Italy. For completeness, I added the phrase specifying that the lawyer's assistance must be available from the first interrogation to reflect the ECHR case-law from Salduz and subsequent cases for Article 6.3c, and the sentence on the interpreter to reflect Article 6.3e.

Last edited by Numbers; 13th June 2019 at 09:41 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 13th June 2019, 11:39 AM   #53
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
The guilters are obsessed with Amanda Knox. I'm obsessed with the guilters. A subtle distinction.
Agreed. I'm obsessed with the case which includes how the PGP approach it. The PGP's obsession with Knox is why they tend to concentrate on Knox's personality and their need to vilify and disparage her personally. They criticize every little thing she does including misrepresenting her Halloween costume, etc.


Quote:
I wish I didn't have 10 volumes of data in my head about Amanda's every recorded moment in Italy, but unfortunately it was necessary for my quest to understand why certain people think the stripped naked girl lying dead with her throat slit in a forced entry apartment surrounded exclusively by the bloody prints of a male burglar whose DNA was found in the rapekit and had a criminal history of forced entry trespassing and carrying a knife was actually the victim of her American flatmate who had no connection with the burglar. BTW my quest remains unfulfilled.
For the PGP, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a chicken because, damn it, you can see it's really a chicken in its eyes!

Last edited by Stacyhs; 13th June 2019 at 11:44 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 12:03 PM   #54
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,015
"Amanda Knox Returns to Italy for First Time Since Her Acquittal

Ms. Knox, an American who was exonerated in a 2007 murder, went back to the country where her legal drama unfolded to speak about wrongful convictions and how journalists cover cases like hers.
....

The murder case captured headlines worldwide for years, fueling debates over sexism, the Italian criminal justice system and international law.
....

In January, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Italian authorities had failed to provide adequate legal assistance during Ms. Knox’s initial, nightlong interrogation in 2007."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/w...gtype=Homepage

Last edited by Numbers; 13th June 2019 at 12:30 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 13th June 2019, 12:57 PM   #55
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,015
"Why Amanda Knox returned to Italy years after her harrowing murder case

Amanda Knox returned to Italy on Thursday for the first time since she was freed from prison there, after she was acquitted in a sensational murder case that captivated the public for years.

Knox agreed to speak at the Criminal Justice Festival’s “Trial by Media” panel in Modena on Saturday, the latest step in her long journey back to public life.

Knox’s life was upended during her time studying abroad in Perugia, Italy. In 2009, she and her boyfriend at the time, Raffaele Sollecito, were first convicted of the 2007 murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher. Knox spent four years in prison before an appeals court overturned her sentence in 2011, whereupon she returned to the United States. In 2015, their convictions were overturned by Italy’s highest appeals court, which said that there was no evidence that she had committed the crime."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.ffcc02255266
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 13th June 2019, 01:12 PM   #56
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,015
"How Amanda Knox’s Trial Was the Dawn of the Fake News Era

The case also featured allegations of mental instability in a leader who would insist upon his fantastically excellent health. A Seattle newspaper criticized the case and quoted unnamed legal experts who reportedly believed Magistrate Giuliano Mignini to be “mentally unstable.” Eleven days later, Mignini filed a defamation claim. “I am quite a healthy man,” the BBC reported Mignini as saying. “I don’t go to the doctor much, and I have never visited a psychologist.”"

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...murder-847731/
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 13th June 2019, 02:00 PM   #57
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Quote:
Amanda Knox in Italy, pm Mignini: "She is a free woman, she can go where she wants, but I remain perplexed"
„- In the Cassation sentence, from page 45 to page 49, it is clearly written that Amanda was in the place and at the time of the crime, so much so that she was guilty of the victim's blood.“
Potrebbe interessarti: http://www.perugiatoday.it/cronaca/a...TSc1QM-13WqPBY
Seguici su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perugi...00142986753754


Mignini has the the same blinkered view of what Marasca said as some PGP. Again, he is ignoring the fact that it was the PREVIOUS (GUEDE) SC that said she was at the cottage at the time of the murder which he had no choice but to deal with. He also ignores the part where Marasca said, the IF she came into contact with MK's blood, it was some time AFTER the murder. Surely the Sherlock Holmes of Italy can understand that...or maybe not.
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 13th June 2019, 02:54 PM   #58
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,205
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Potrebbe interessarti: http://www.perugiatoday.it/cronaca/a...TSc1QM-13WqPBY
Seguici su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perugi...00142986753754


Mignini has the the same blinkered view of what Marasca said as some PGP. Again, he is ignoring the fact that it was the PREVIOUS (GUEDE) SC that said she was at the cottage at the time of the murder which he had no choice but to deal with. He also ignores the part where Marasca said, the IF she came into contact with MK's blood, it was some time AFTER the murder. Surely the Sherlock Holmes of Italy can understand that...or maybe not.


(Barring the fact that it was actually the Chieffi SC ruling on Knox's criminal slander that placed her at the cottage at the time of the murder... and not Guede's SC confirmation....)


Exactly. What pro-guilt commentators (and, it would astonishingly seem, Maresca and Mignini) cannot or will not understand is that had the Marasca SC panel stated unequivocally that Knox was nowhere near the cottage at the time of the murder, this would have set up a judicial conflict between two different SC panels - a conflict which necessarily would have required a remedy, very possibly involving some sort of retrial.

Rather, the Marasca SC panel clearly and pointedly (through its choice of wording) decided to play the "realpolitik" game: it clearly decided that it simply wasn't worth butting up against the previous SC final verdict and opening up a messy, time-consuming judicial can of worms in Italy. Because, as it correctly says, even if one accepts that Knox was there, there's still no evidence to convict her (or Sollecito, of course) of murder. And since it was purely the murder (and murder-related) crimes of Knox and Sollecito that the Marasca SC panel was responsible for considering, that was all that was important from a judicial/legal perspective.

It really is very simple, to anyone with any intelligence, foresight, understanding of the case, and understanding of Italian criminal justice. I can forgive (some of) the pro-guilt commentators their ignorance or low intellects, but it's impossible to believe that Marasca or Mignini don't understand the situation perfectly well. And that makes their comments nothing more or less than mendacious, mischievious attempts to mislead. Disgusting (but one expects nothing less from that pair, I suppose....)
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 13th June 2019, 03:29 PM   #59
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It has never been proved that it was a false alibi. As you've been told a many, many times, Knox placing herself at the cottage that night became a judicial fact upon the definitive calunnia conviction. Marasca had no choice but to deal with that but even then he said that IF she came into contact with blood it happened AFTER the murder and no one disputes she was at the cottage AFTER the murder. Sollecito has never been proved to be outside his apartment that night. An unsubstantiated alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi.
Crini established it as a legal fact Sollecito in particular put forward a false alibi and that counted as evidence against him. (Nencini.)
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 03:31 PM   #60
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
No it's not. What are you talking about?
Prosecutor and barrister Crini knows better than you.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 03:33 PM   #61
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
ER, no. Raff saying she went out that night would not have made any difference. She could have still blamed Guede. After all, she had already pointed out his feces and bloody footprint to the police. And, if guilty, she would have known they'd find his bloody shoe prints in the hallway and bedroom.
That is a whopping lie, she did not say the faeces or footprints were Guede's.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 03:48 PM   #62
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,379
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Prosecutor and barrister Crini knows better than you.
Anyone who would say "a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints" is silly no matter who they are.

I know this won't help you, but there's a logical fallacy in claiming....
  • Since they are guilty, their alibi must have been false.
  • The false alibi is then proof in turn that they are guilty.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 13th June 2019 at 03:53 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 03:55 PM   #63
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Today's Italian Press Spells out the TRUTH

So, is it true Knox and Sollecito are 'exonerated' and found 'innocent' as they keep claiming?

In an Italian newspaper MONTANA today, the real truth is revealed to those who may have believed the PR:

Quote:
Seven passages on all that we want to reproduce in full with the original pages of the sentence, perhaps never published in its entirety.

1. It is an established fact, by sentence, that Knox was in Meredith's home at the time of the murder. 2. Knox was present, also because she was aware of details of the murder that the police did not yet know, as she was aware of the extraneousness of Lumumba. 3. For the sentence it is 'incontrovertible' that other people have participated in the murder besides Guede (we remember the condemned man with the abbreviated rite). And this derives not only from the final judgment on Guede but from 'other evidence that confirms its reliability'.
Quote:
4. The sentence certifies that the alleged burglary in the home is a "staging".
Quote:
5. The sentence certifies that Knox washed her hands of the victim's blood , which is called an "eloquent proof"; for this reason the Court envisages only two possibilities: either Knox was directly involved in the homicidal action, or the contact with the blood occurred at a later time in the 'probable attempt to remove the traces' in order to 'cover someone' and "Remove suspicion from oneself".
Quote:
6. During the interrogation of 6 November 2007 to Knox, who did not speak Italian well, an interpreter or lawyer was not supported. This is why in January of this year the Court of Strasbourg condemned Italy to compensate her. Well, based on the 2015 ruling, a possible ruling in favor of Knox by the European Court could not 'in any way tarnish' the conviction of guilt for slander for the accusations against Lumumba.
Quote:
7. The sentence defines as 'poorly credible' the idea that Sollecito was not also present. Certainly, as mentioned, the presence of Knox.
I guess most Americans prefer not to know these facts. No doubt the PIP will be demanding these revelations should be hidden from view and censored.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 04:14 PM   #64
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,180
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
What part of "We spent the evening alone at Raffaele's apartment" fails to meet the definition of an alibi?
Um, why do they need an alibi in the first place?

It is the prosecution burden to prove guilt. Not having an alibi is not proof of guilt.

Just yesterday, in the small wee hours, a man was stabbed to death in the main street of my town. Was it me that did the deed? Of course not. Have I an alibi? Nope. I was asleep in bed at the time alone.

Somehow, in Vixen's view, that makes me a suspect and is possibly sufficient for a conviction.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 13th June 2019, 04:18 PM   #65
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Crini established it as a legal fact Sollecito in particular put forward a false alibi and that counted as evidence against him. (Nencini.)
No, Crini claimed it was a false alibi. Nencini was overturned.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is a whopping lie, she did not say the faeces or footprints were Guede's.
Try reading what I said again very slowly. You should be able to see that I never said Knox told the police they were Guede's. I could have said "the feces" or "the footprint" but the feces has been determined to be Guede's and logic says she would not have pointed out the bathmat footprint if it belonged to Sollecito. Thus, I used "his" instead. Sheesh.

Quote:
ER, no. Raff saying she went out that night would not have made any difference. She could have still blamed Guede. After all, she had already pointed out his feces and bloody footprint to the police. And, if guilty, she would have known they'd find his bloody shoe prints in the hallway and bedroom.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 13th June 2019 at 04:20 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 13th June 2019, 04:20 PM   #66
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Um, why do they need an alibi in the first place?

It is the prosecution burden to prove guilt. Not having an alibi is not proof of guilt.

Just yesterday, in the small wee hours, a man was stabbed to death in the main street of my town. Was it me that did the deed? Of course not. Have I an alibi? Nope. I was asleep in bed at the time alone.

Somehow, in Vixen's view, that makes me a suspect and is possibly sufficient for a conviction.
Once again, you fail to understand that a false alibi is a sound criminal law concept.

If the police knock on your door and ask you where you were as of the time this gentleman was stabbed to death and you say, 'ah, I was elsewhere all night' and then when they check your story and find you were lying about this, then they can indeed hold it as evidence against you should they decide there is enough evidence to charge you.

Comprendez-vous?
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 04:36 PM   #67
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,205
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Prosecutor and barrister Crini knows better than you.


Italian Supreme Court Justice Marasca and his colleagues, and the Grand Chamber of the ECHR, all know far better than Crini. And you.

Thank U. Next.
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 13th June 2019, 04:39 PM   #68
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,205
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Once again, you fail to understand that a false alibi is a sound criminal law concept.

If the police knock on your door and ask you where you were as of the time this gentleman was stabbed to death and you say, 'ah, I was elsewhere all night' and then when they check your story and find you were lying about this, then they can indeed hold it as evidence against you should they decide there is enough evidence to charge you.

Comprendez-vous?


Ahh yes. Remind us all again exactly how and why Knox's/Sollecito's mutually-supporting alibi was shown to be false? Be careful, now, only to use evidence which is both credible and reliable in your explanation. I await it with interest.

(And I liked it far better when you mis-used and mis-spelled "Kemo sabe".....)
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 13th June 2019, 04:43 PM   #69
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,379
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, is it true Knox and Sollecito are 'exonerated' and found 'innocent' as they keep claiming?

In an Italian newspaper MONTANA today, the real truth is revealed to those who may have believed the PR:

I guess most Americans prefer not to know these facts. No doubt the PIP will be demanding these revelations should be hidden from view and censored.
Congratulations, Vixen, for finding an Italian news outlet that is supportive of your position.

Yet all of these "seven truths" have been covered endlessly. For instance, the details of the "elegant proof" that Knox washed blood from her hands goes unreported in the 2015 exoneration's motivation report - leaving it to inquiring minds to go hunting for it. Indeed, the piece you cite itself doesn't provide any proof, except to reiterate that it is seen as an unproven "judicial truth". Yes, we know that.

Once one finds where it started from, which neither the newspiece nor you ever address, one finds the line in the Massei report from 2010, a report based on convicting the pair, that says that "washing blood from her hands" is something that the Massei court infers, rather than finds through actual evidence - but infers after first finding them guilty which is a necessary condition of the inference. When even the Massei report confirms that even the Scientific Police (meaning, Stefanoni) related the impossibility of id'ing Knox's skin cells mixed in with the victim's blood, Massei simply says that he acknowledges this - but comes to the conclusion "on other grounds" other than the science.

Namely, that Massei engages in circular reasoning. "I know they're guilty, therefore it must have been Knox's skin cells, depositied as a result of the murder. Yet, I can then use that to prove she's guilty." Other than that, he says, he then cannot account for skin cells being found in the victim's blood, ignoring that it was found in a bathroom that the two had shared for weeks.

So, between relying on "judicial facts" which are not supported by forensics, as well as illogic of other judge's findings, this piece is simply repeating worn talking points - long since debunked.

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

Last edited by Bill Williams; 13th June 2019 at 04:47 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:43 PM   #70
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, is it true Knox and Sollecito are 'exonerated' and found 'innocent' as they keep claiming?

In an Italian newspaper

Quote:
Seven passages on all that we want to reproduce in full with the original pages of the sentence, perhaps never published in its entirety.
Quote:
1. It is an established fact, by sentence, that Knox was in Meredith's home at the time of the murder.
2. Knox was present, also because she was aware of details of the murder that the police did not yet know, as she was aware of the extraneousness of Lumumba.
3. For the sentence it is 'incontrovertible' that other people have participated in the murder besides Guede (we remember the condemned man with the abbreviated rite). And this derives not only from the final judgment on Guede but from 'other evidence that confirms its reliability'.
Sigh. What part of "this was established as judicial fact by a previous SC that Marasca could not dispute" are you having such difficulty with? A SC court ruling is FINAL and not even another SC can dispute it.

Quote:
4. The sentence certifies that the alleged burglary in the home is a "staging".
Also established as a judicial fact by a previous SC ruling. See above.


Quote:
5. The sentence certifies that Knox washed her hands of the victim's blood , which is called an "eloquent proof"; for this reason the Court envisages only two possibilities: either Knox was directly involved in the homicidal action, or the contact with the blood occurred at a later time in the 'probable attempt to remove the traces' in order to 'cover someone' and "Remove suspicion from oneself".
And again...NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE supports this. NONE. And you know this because you've been challenged to produce it several times which you have failed to do. If all this was such "eloquent proof" then why does Marasca go on to acquit them? Again, who was she covering? Guede? The same man whose feces she pointed out to the police? Whose bloody footprint she pointed out? Whose visible bloody palm print and shoe prints she left as evidence? LOGIC says NO.

Quote:
6. During the interrogation of 6 November 2007 to Knox, who did not speak Italian well, an interpreter or lawyer was not supported. This is why in January of this year the Court of Strasbourg condemned Italy to compensate her. Well, based on the 2015 ruling, a possible ruling in favor of Knox by the European Court could not 'in any way tarnish' the conviction of guilt for slander for the accusations against Lumumba.
LOL! But it did anyway, didn't it?

Quote:
7. The sentence defines as 'poorly credible' the idea that Sollecito was not also present. Certainly, as mentioned, the presence of Knox.
Except they had no evidence he was there just as they had no evidence Knox was there at the time of the murder. Is their DNA in the bedroom? No. Are their bloody shoeprints there? No. Are their fingerprints in Meredith's blood? No.


MONTANA
today, the real truth is revealed to those who may have believed the PR:

I guess most Americans prefer not to know these facts. No doubt the PIP will be demanding these revelations should be hidden from view and censored.
The truth is that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with Kercher's murder and Guede is the only killer...which is why ONLY evidence of GUEDE was found in Kercher's bedroom or on her body. What's that line from A Few Good Men? Oh, yes....


Last edited by Stacyhs; 13th June 2019 at 04:49 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 13th June 2019, 04:50 PM   #71
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,379
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The truth is that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with Kercher's murder and Guede is the only killer...which is why ONLY evidence of GUEDE was found in Kercher's bedroom or on her body. What's that line from A Few Good Men? Oh, yes....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2df7c653d9.png
Oh yes, thanks for the reminder - both that newspiece and Vixen leave off the conclusion that the 2015 Supreme Court came to after considering what the case would look like, even if the prosecution's theories had been true.....

..... that none of it overcomes the reality that all it does, if true, is demonstrate that K and S had been at the cottage after the murder and in another part of it - which no one has ever denied.

That's why both Vixen and that newspiece ultimately get it wrong.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 13th June 2019 at 05:02 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:54 PM   #72
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the police knock on your door and ask you where you were as of the time this gentleman was stabbed to death and you say, 'ah, I was elsewhere all night' and then when they check your story and find you were lying about this, then they can indeed hold it as evidence against you should they decide there is enough evidence to charge you.
Your usual boring tripe...your scenario makes no sense and even if it did, there'd be no way for the police to "check" the story as originally presented nor find out he was "lying" about anything.
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 13th June 2019, 05:03 PM   #73
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Crini established it as a legal fact Sollecito in particular put forward a false alibi and that counted as evidence against him. (Nencini.)
I'll see your Nencini overturned verdict and raise you a Hellmann overturned verdict:

Quote:
In any event, this Court does not find that one can maintain that the alibi offered is false.
Quote:
This Corte di Assise of second level, however, finds that none of the above elements, whether alone or in conjunction with the others, can serve to prove that the version given by the two defendants was false, as these elements have no unambiguous meaning whatsoever in themselves, and — also in light of what later emerged during the proceedings — can find an explanation different from that adopted [operata] by the Corte di Assise of first level, and more plausible based on notions of common experience.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Once again, you fail to understand that a false alibi is a sound criminal law concept.

If the police knock on your door and ask you where you were as of the time this gentleman was stabbed to death and you say, 'ah, I was elsewhere all night' and then when they check your story and find you were lying about this, then they can indeed hold it as evidence against you should they decide there is enough evidence to charge you.

Comprendez-vous?
Once again, you fail to understand that an unproved alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi. And, even if an alibi is false, there are more reasons than guilt why someone may give a false alibi. I've already given one example regarding a cheating husband. Here's another:

A teenager sneaks out at night to have sex with her boyfriend. During that time, a murder takes place and she's implicated. She tells the police she went to a movie alone because she fears her parents, who are very strict and religious, would disown her if they found out she was having sex.

Comprende Ud.?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 13th June 2019 at 05:16 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 13th June 2019, 05:12 PM   #74
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Oh yes, thanks for the reminder - both that newspiece and Vixen leave off the conclusion that the 2015 Supreme Court came to after considering what the case would look like, even if the prosecution's theories had been true.....

..... that none of it overcomes the reality that all it does, if true, is demonstrate that K and S had been at the cottage after the murder and in another part of it - which no one has ever denied.

That's why both Vixen and that newspiece ultimately get it wrong.
I looked up MONTANA. It's an independent online 'newspaper'. It does not name the author of the article, only the names of the three people who established and run it. Assuming they (or one or two) wrote the article, my first question would be: what legal expertise do they have in order to correctly understand what it's saying? As we've seen, people can read the same thing and come up with totally different understandings.
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 13th June 2019, 05:16 PM   #75
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ahh yes. Remind us all again exactly how and why Knox's/Sollecito's mutually-supporting alibi was shown to be false? Be careful, now, only to use evidence which is both credible and reliable in your explanation. I await it with interest.

(And I liked it far better when you mis-used and mis-spelled "Kemo sabe".....)
Forensic IT experts (and we know how thoroughy nerdy they are) found without a doubt Raff lied when he claimed he was surfing the net half the night.

Telephone communications experts testified he lied about not turning his phone off circa 8:50-ish around the same time as Knox. There were no signals recorded to his phone despite his father ringing circa 11:30pm. None of the residents in the same building or region had any problems with their phone signals.

He lied in a signed police statement (an educated Italian-speaker, who cannot claim, 'me no understandee') that Knox was with him all night. He corrected this 'sack of ****' (his words) to testify in a written witness statement and signed by him 5 Nov 2007 that he had come home alone about 9:00 after being out in the old town. He then surfed the net and Knox turned up at 1:00am.

No wonder the liar didn't want to show his face in the witness box!
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 05:20 PM   #76
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Your usual boring tripe...your scenario makes no sense and even if it did, there'd be no way for the police to "check" the story as originally presented nor find out he was "lying" about anything.
Police can and do check people's stories. It's what they are trained to do.

Whoever killed the gent outside abbadon's house last night of course will lie to the police about his whereabouts at the time of the murder so it is no surprise the police will pay close attention to someone who blatantly lies to them about where they were as of the time of a murder.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 05:25 PM   #77
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'll see your Nencini overturned verdict and raise you a Hellmann overturned verdict:








Once again, you fail to understand that an unproved alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi. And, even if an alibi is false, there are more reasons than guilt why someone may give a false alibi. I've already given one example regarding a cheating husband. Here's another:

A teenager sneaks out at night to have sex with her boyfriend. During that time, a murder takes place and she's implicated. She tells the police she went to a movie alone because she fears her parents, who are very strict and religious, would disown her if they found out she was having sex.

Comprende Ud.?
You think the police won't find out she's lying?

It only becomes evidence if she persists after having being cautioned. Obviously there would need to be proper evidence to prosecute in the first place. If she signs a witness statement searing under oath her claim is true then technically she could face a perjury charge.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 05:26 PM   #78
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,379
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I looked up MONTANA. It's an independent online 'newspaper'. It does not name the author of the article, only the names of the three people who established and run it. Assuming they (or one or two) wrote the article, my first question would be: what legal expertise do they have in order to correctly understand what it's saying? As we've seen, people can read the same thing and come up with totally different understandings.
Vixen, and Montana (whoever they are), never deal with this part of the Marasca-Bruno report, which frames the whole presentation of what they call, "judicial facts"
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victimís body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
The Italian Supreme Court states its premise, which becomes the conclusion at the end of Section 9.

Section 9 consists of this:
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.
When that synoptic presentation is outlined - presenting ALL the judicial truths that both Montana and Vixen parrot ad nauseam, the conclusion of the exonerating court is.....
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. 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 victimís body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victimís blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.
Quoting bits out of this context is what is wrong.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 05:27 PM   #79
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I looked up MONTANA. It's an independent online 'newspaper'. It does not name the author of the article, only the names of the three people who established and run it. Assuming they (or one or two) wrote the article, my first question would be: what legal expertise do they have in order to correctly understand what it's saying? As we've seen, people can read the same thing and come up with totally different understandings.
A court judgment is unequivocal. Courts are there to arbitrate one way or the other.

The newspaper quotes an official court document, that of the final Supreme Court Marasca-Bruno.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 05:31 PM   #80
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,195
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen, and Montana (whoever they are), never deal with this part of the Marasca-Bruno report, which frames the whole presentation of what they call, "judicial facts"
The Italian Supreme Court states its premise, which becomes the conclusion at the end of Section 9.

Section 9 consists of this:
When that synoptic presentation is outlined - presenting ALL the judicial truths that both Montana and Vixen parrot ad nauseam, the conclusion of the exonerating court is.....
Quoting bits out of this context is what is wrong.
Here we go again. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. You still haven't taken on board my comments to this on numerous occasions. Stone wall.
__________________
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
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 12:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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