IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 2nd October 2022, 01:42 AM   #2721
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ah....the same old, tired, unsupported lies.

All the many scientific experts and judges who did not support the guilty verdict or Stefanoni's discredited findings are 'bent', 'incompetent', or in the pocket of the US government or mafia or Masons or fill in the blank according to you. But all the pro-guilt ones are 'honest' and 'trustworthy'. Is that why Stefanoni 'forgot about' all those negative TMB tests that were crucial evidence? Or why the police failed to either audio- or video-record the crucial interrogations? Or why Napoleoni, Zugarini, et al officers stand convicted themselves for misusing their positions to harass a court psychologist and Napoleoni's ex-husband? Yep...totally honest cops.
I have never known anyone so assiduously evade the facts.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 01:47 AM   #2722
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Vixen's post above is not only filled with lies, it thoroughly misrepresents the lawful Italian judicial processes in order to make its false arguments. Here are corrections for some of the judicial process misrepresentations.

1. Under Italian criminal procedure law, an appeals trial judge has the same authority to review the evidence, even new evidence, including testimony, and evaluate the factual and legal merits of a case as does a first instance court judge.

2. Appeals in Italy are not automatic, but only occur if the accused or the prosecutor files a request for an appeal within the statutory time limit.

3. It is incorrect to refer to an annulled court decision as expunged. The court decision, even if annulled, continues as an accessible record, and may be referred to by, for example, the Italian Constitutional Court or the ECHR in an evaluation of the case. Under Italian law, the annulled court decisions in the Knox - Sollecito case include the Massei first instance verdict and motivation report, the Hellmann appeal court verdict and motivation report except for Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, and the Marasca CSC panel verdict .and motivation report. The Marasca verdict is the definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape and aggravated calunnia charges.

4. Contrary to Vixen's misrepresentation, Italian criminal procedural law allows the CSC to review the evidence that was already gathered with respect to the admissibility and quality of that evidence and how it was used to logically (or not) develop the verdict.
In correct. As defendants can only appeal on set points of law, they cannot appeal on facts found. If it is felt there was an error in the way the merits court handled the case in coming to its verdict, the only remedy available to the higher courts, is to send it back down to the court who made the error with clear directions to address it.

It is almost unheard of for defendants convicted both at the merits hearing and then the conviction upheld on appeal to simply have the Supreme Court throw the whole thing out. It is most irregular.

Why? Because how can judges sitting at a table with only paperwork come to a judgment in half a day?

BTW 'automatic' was shorthand for a defendant's (and the prosecutor's) automatic right to appeal a lower court verdict.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend


Last edited by Vixen; 2nd October 2022 at 01:49 AM.
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 2nd October 2022, 01:53 AM   #2723
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Do try and follow more closely. If the trial was so "fair" then why was the appeal granted? And then that 'fair' trial overturned?



Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Are you hallucinating posts where you think I said any of that? Or is this misrepresentation (aka 'lying') about what I said deliberate? Because it has to be at least one of them.

By the way, Massei and Nencini were also expunged but since when has that stopped you from referring to them as if they still have any merit?

You saying "I" don't have debate or logic on my agenda is beyond ironic. As I said earlier, I'm not the one handwaving away the forensic evidence like negative TMB tests, piss poor DNA analysis that has been discredited by far more experts than uphold it (you've never presented other experts who do no matter how many times it's been requested), and the many and various ways the SP broke anti-contamination protocols. And I also don't lie about what other posters have said. That's your 'debate' tactic.
Reasoning with you is like trying to plait a bucket of live eels. Do look up how criminal courts and trials work.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 01:57 AM   #2724
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What is this penchant of yours for misrepresenting (lying) about what has been said? It's grown quite tiresome and predictable. Do you think people here can't read?

First of all, I was speaking directly about ONE convicted murderer, Guede...not some vague "African guy"... well known for his lies as both the trial judges and his own foster family have supported as part of his character. No where did I say, or even imply, that "any book written by a Black guy will be 'playing the race card' or that "any Black guy complaining about treatment in the justice system must be 'playing the race card'."

I repeat: your virtue signaling by attempting to be the anti-racist defender falls flat on its face. All it's doing is revealing even more the dishonest tactics you resort. Stop embarrassing yourself.
How do you know Guede's book is 'playing the race card' when you don't even know what is in it? So how come it is very important to note that Guede's foster family despaired of Guede's lying but without even noting that Sollecito's own father wanted to put his drug-experimenting wayward son into drug rehabilitation and rang him up a dozen times a day as he did not trust him?

Why the discrimination, Stacyhs?
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 02:01 AM   #2725
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Does your alleged Frankl have a history of playing that card? Of constantly lying? Has he gone on TV and made statements like this:

At 1:19:17

Leosini: Rudy, why do you think AK accused Lumumba?

Guede, Yet, I have come to a clear opinion: in that house when I bumped into that man that I didn't know and who didn't know me and who spoke with Amanda who was outside, and told her "There's someone inside" I think he told her there's a person of color in the house. What I want to say is that, had Amanda seen me, she'd have thrown her false accusation against me to defend herself. But when she heard there was a person of color in the house, to cover her ass...pardon my French, she resorted to Patrick Lumumba's name, because, indeed that evening, she had a text from PL telling her not to come to work. Had she received one from Michael Jordan, she'd have accused him instead."
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Remember, Ficarra said SHE brought up Rudy and BEFORE the text message to Lumumba was ever mentioned. Once again Guede is lying and trying to use racism in his defense.


As for Trump, he claims he sent a donation but he is infamous for claiming donations that he never actually made. There is no evidence that he ever actually sent a dime. He's a also a pathological liar.
Erm, Knox remains convicted of falsely accusing Lumumba of being the rapist and murderer of Meredith Kercher. In the UK the equivalent crime is 'subverting the course of justice' and in the US 'obstruction of justice' a Federal crime (not a minor slander misdemeanor that you like to falsely claim).
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 02:27 AM   #2726
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have never known anyone so assiduously evade the facts.
OK. Let's bottom line it shall we? All the evidence points to Rudy regardless of what colour he is. There is no sustainable evidence of anyone else involved in the murder. These are the facts.

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 2nd October 2022, 02:37 AM   #2727
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
OK. Let's bottom line it shall we? All the evidence points to Rudy regardless of what colour he is. There is no sustainable evidence of anyone else involved in the murder. These are the facts.

Hoots
Oh dear. The fact of the matter is Guede was found guilty of being an accessory (=felony murder). His judgment clearly states that it was another person that killed the victim.

I know that is not what you want to hear or believe but simply rolling out semantics doesn't change the facts.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 02:40 AM   #2728
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,739
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Reasoning with you is like trying to plait a bucket of live eels. Do look up how criminal courts and trials work.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you were able to understand the supreme irony of this, you'd understand the supreme irony of this.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 03:33 AM   #2729
MarkCorrigan
¡No pasarán!
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Слава Україні
Posts: 11,285
Is Vixen attempting to claim to be a legal expert again?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan 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 2nd October 2022, 03:37 AM   #2730
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,260
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It only takes ONE person - the judge. Bongiorno (far right politician who hero worships mafia-linked former President Andreotti and now looks to be in a coalition with Mussolini-style Fascist just-elected Meloni) knobbled Bruno or Marasca (or both) and with the US State stepping in, that is all that was needed for the surprise verdict, unprecedented in Italian legal history (apart from Berlusconi and Andreotti).
So the State Department got to the Hellmann Court, and the Supreme Court, but couldn't get to Nencini right? He was incorruptible. I think I've got the formula down.

Convicting courts = fair and just
Acquitting courts = corrupt
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 2nd October 2022, 03:59 AM   #2731
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. The fact of the matter is Guede was found guilty of being an accessory (=felony murder). His judgment clearly states that it was another person that killed the victim.

I know that is not what you want to hear or believe but simply rolling out semantics doesn't change the facts.
Oh dear. Your are forgetting that there are judicial facts and actual facts. Thanks for highlighting just how absurd that judicial fact is.

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 2nd October 2022, 04:38 AM   #2732
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Erm, Knox remains convicted of falsely accusing Lumumba of being the rapist and murderer of Meredith Kercher. In the UK the equivalent crime is 'subverting the course of justice' and in the US 'obstruction of justice' a Federal crime (not a minor slander misdemeanor that you like to falsely claim).
As a result of an interrogation that had multiple human rights and domestic laws abuses, but let's not bother about that.

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 2nd October 2022, 04:48 AM   #2733
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,865
I can't believe this is still going on. Where is the "head in hands" smilie?

__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   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 2nd October 2022, 05:09 AM   #2734
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
So the State Department got to the Hellmann Court, and the Supreme Court, but couldn't get to Nencini right? He was incorruptible. I think I've got the formula down.

Convicting courts = fair and just
Acquitting courts = corrupt
Courts work like this. You are arrested by the police. The police contact the CPS to obtain authority to charge you with a specific offence or several. You are brought before a magistrates court to plead. If it is a minor offence and you plead guilty you are dealt with there and then. End. If a serious offence, you are brought before the magistrate and the prosecutor asks you be remanded in custody. The magistrate either accepts or refuses and lets you ut on bail. You case is referred to a crown court, such as the Old Bailey. You are brought before it and you plead 'not guilty' so you are listed for a trial.

The merits trial is extremely important because this is your only chance to put forward your defence and bring in witnesses, some expert. The prosecution do likewise and you are told of all of the evidence and the issues in advance. A trail commences which is as fair as possible to the defendant. The defendant is found guilty after the court has heard ALL of the evidence put before it.

In England & Wales, this can be appealed, as all decisions by a judge can be, however, in practice, once found guilty that is the end of the matter. If it does successfully go to an appeal court on a point of law, then all the appeal court can do is to refer it back to the original lower court, should you win your appeal. Should you lose your appeal that is the end of the matter. You can ask permission to take it to Supreme Court on a point of law or constitution. The Supreme Court has no power to acquit you except for an extremely narrow band of reasons, such as 'miscarriage of justice' and even then it is far more likely to send it back down for a retrial.

In Italy, all defendants have the automatic right of appeal, as does the prosecutor (unlike in the UK). Thus it can be seen that a case can go backwards and forwards depending on who is doing the appealing. I can tell you for a fact that in Italy, if you are found guilty at the merits court stage, and then again at the appeal stage, there is no way the Supreme Court has the power to declare you ;not guilty'. The protocol is for it to send it back down to the lower court to correct the error in the point of law appealed.

The only time in history anyone in Italy has been freed in such a case under para 2 insufficient evidence in the aforesaid manner was the Barcelona bombers, Andreotti and Berlusconi. These were using political loopholes.

The fact Knox and Sollecito got off on this loophole is all todo with Bongiorno being familiar with Andreotti's case and offering it as a suggestion to Marasca and Bruno.

Given that out of hundreds of thousands of cases every year ONLY Knox and Sollecito got off in this manner, can you now comprehend just how irregular the whole thing was. They were not exonerated or declared innocent. M&B spell it out large that the pair were present at the crime, that the burglary was staged, that the pair lied outrageously and that there was more than one person involved.

These are the objective facts.


There is no escaping them with clever witticisms.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 05:10 AM   #2735
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Oh dear. Your are forgetting that there are judicial facts and actual facts. Thanks for highlighting just how absurd that judicial fact is.

Hoots
Unfortunately for people who get charged with a criminal offence, it is the judicial facts that decide their case.


AFAICS it is as fair as procedurally possible.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 05:14 AM   #2736
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
As a result of an interrogation that had multiple human rights and domestic laws abuses, but let's not bother about that.

Hoots
There was only one Human Right Article Knox succeeded in: that was under Article 6 right to a fair trial, as her lawyer was given a crumb of comfort for losing the substantial part of the claim under Article 3, as they managed to use the Bonsigna case, which was nothing to do with her calunnia conviction, to say she should have had an Italian interpreter when she offered to accuse Patrick.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 05:15 AM   #2737
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 30,993
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I can't believe this is still going on. Where is the "head in hands" smilie?


This has all kicked off because Guede has now written his memoirs, apparently.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 05:35 AM   #2738
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unfortunately for people who get charged with a criminal offence, it is the judicial facts that decide their case.


AFAICS it is as fair as procedurally possible.
The judicial facts were indeed unfortunate in this case since they implicated 2 innocent people and made the case irreconcilable, AFAICS.

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 2nd October 2022, 06:08 AM   #2739
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There was only one Human Right Article Knox succeeded in: that was under Article 6 right to a fair trial, as her lawyer was given a crumb of comfort for losing the substantial part of the claim under Article 3, as they managed to use the Bonsigna case, which was nothing to do with her calunnia conviction, to say she should have had an Italian interpreter when she offered to accuse Patrick.
The restriction of "access to a lawyer" and "right to the assistance of an interpreter" that "undermined" and "compromised" the fairness of the proceedings as a whole" are pretty fundamental I'd say. It'll be interesting to see how Italy as the respondent state get round to resolving it.

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 2nd October 2022, 06:59 AM   #2740
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I still wonder if he really did as he's infamous for claiming he made donations...or will...but didn't. He never said how much it was and, knowing him, he'd have bragged about how much it was and made sure everyone knew . Was there actually a record of everyone who donated? Maybe Knox just took him at his word that he donated money to her defense fund.

Regardless, Vixen's claim that Trump affected anything is preposterous as is the equally preposterous claim that Clinton or the US government influenced the Italian judiciary. They're nothing but desperate excuses for why the pair was acquitted.
I don't know if he (or Amanda Knox) publicly stated the amount of his donation.

For his claim of a donation, See:

https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Trum.../04/id/413148/
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 2nd October 2022, 07:22 AM   #2741
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In correct. {1.} As defendants can only appeal on set points of law, they cannot appeal on facts found. If it is felt there was an error in the way the merits court handled the case in coming to its verdict, the only remedy available to the higher courts, is to send it back down to the court who made the error with clear directions to address it.

{2.}It is almost unheard of for defendants convicted both at the merits hearing and then the conviction upheld on appeal to simply have the Supreme Court throw the whole thing out. It is most irregular.

{3.}Why? Because how can judges sitting at a table with only paperwork come to a judgment in half a day?

BTW 'automatic' was shorthand for a defendant's (and the prosecutor's) automatic right to appeal a lower court verdict.
1. This is absolutely false with respect to Italian law for appeals from Italian first instance courts to the second level courts. All subjects, whether law, facts or interpretation of evidence (interpretation of facts is a point of law in Italian law), covered by a first instance court may be included in a request to the second level court (CPP Article 581).

Under Italian law, appeals to the CSC from trials are limited as to subject in accordance with CPP Article 606; appeal requests outside those lawfully allowed subjects are rejected. Allowed subjects for appeal to the CSC include not only the application by the lower court of law itself, but also the legality of the evidence and the logic of the lower court reasoning from that evidence and from the law.

2. This is false. The procedure is not that uncommon and is covered under Italian law, CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, subparagraph L.

3. As may be seen from the Marasca CSC panel's fairly thorough review in the motivation report of the Knox - Sollecito cas, a CSC panel can do an adequate judgment if it is objective and follows Italian and ECHR law.

A CSC panel's detailed review of an appeal and its associated documents may start as early as 30 days prior to the formal hearing (CPP Article 610, paragraph 5), and some review by the President of the CSC and staff occurs soon after the appeal to the CSC is received by the CSC (CPP Article 610, paragraphs 1, 1-bis, and 2).

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd October 2022 at 07:26 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 2nd October 2022, 07:40 AM   #2742
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
During a discussion with Harry on YouTube he said:

"If Meredith was your daughter, you would have a completely different opinion about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's numerous lies. You wouldn't be able to hand wave them away."

I thought "jeez I'm talking to Meredith's old man". So, I just asked him if he had any genetic relationship with Meredith. He flatly denied any familial connection. I remembered thinking that no relative of Meredith would deny such a connection, since it would seem almost like an act of betrayal, but I believed him.

The only other thing I can think of is that Harry knew Meredith's father personally on a professional level. The comment is verbatim, it struck me as so odd at the time, that's why I kept it.

Hoots
That's interesting. The problem is taking anything HR/The Machine wrote at face value. He/they had no compunction in lying and obviously took considerable pains to conceal their identity while literally carpet-bombing the internet for years - and succeeded. Which implies considerable IT skills and resources (not some unemployed saddo in a basement with a PC). JK Jr. worked in IT at the BBC ...
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
"He could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think and that, that is our job." - Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC
IsThisTheLife 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 2nd October 2022, 07:42 AM   #2743
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 858
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Actually, he is the only one of the three defendants who ever expressed any remorse at all (whether sincere or not).
Vixen still can't understand the simple fact that you don't need to express remorse for a crime you haven't committed.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 08:48 AM   #2744
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There was only one Human Right Article Knox succeeded in: that was under Article 6 right to a fair trial, as her lawyer was given a crumb of comfort for losing the substantial part of the claim under Article 3, as they managed to use the Bonsigna case, which was nothing to do with her calunnia conviction, to say she should have had an Italian interpreter when she offered to accuse Patrick.
The ECHR judgement referenced the Boninsegna motivation indicating the "psychological pressure" that prevailed during the proceedings. This had everything to do with the calunnia since it implies that Lumumba was implicated in an atmosphere of "oppression and stress". Boninsegna also states that:

"In fact the witness confirmed that the phrase on record, see you later, should be understood as an invitation to a totally generic future meeting, equivalent to a presto [see you soon] or something similar, rather than to an imminent and certain invitation."

If Amanda had willingly implicated Lumumba via the text message, she risked being slapped down by Donnino, who with 22 years of experience would have known exactly what the text message meant. Donnino also had the opportunity to advise her colleagues that the text message wasn't incriminating but didn't do so. Instead Donnino joined the cop consensus that Lumumba was their man with Amanda eventually capitulating through sheer exhaustion.

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 2nd October 2022, 08:53 AM   #2745
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,260
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Courts work like this. You are arrested by the police. The police contact the CPS to obtain authority to charge you with a specific offence or several. You are brought before a magistrates court to plead. If it is a minor offence and you plead guilty you are dealt with there and then. End. If a serious offence, you are brought before the magistrate and the prosecutor asks you be remanded in custody. The magistrate either accepts or refuses and lets you ut on bail. You case is referred to a crown court, such as the Old Bailey. You are brought before it and you plead 'not guilty' so you are listed for a trial.

The merits trial is extremely important because this is your only chance to put forward your defence and bring in witnesses, some expert. The prosecution do likewise and you are told of all of the evidence and the issues in advance. A trail commences which is as fair as possible to the defendant. The defendant is found guilty after the court has heard ALL of the evidence put before it.

In England & Wales, this can be appealed, as all decisions by a judge can be, however, in practice, once found guilty that is the end of the matter. If it does successfully go to an appeal court on a point of law, then all the appeal court can do is to refer it back to the original lower court, should you win your appeal. Should you lose your appeal that is the end of the matter. You can ask permission to take it to Supreme Court on a point of law or constitution. The Supreme Court has no power to acquit you except for an extremely narrow band of reasons, such as 'miscarriage of justice' and even then it is far more likely to send it back down for a retrial.

In Italy, all defendants have the automatic right of appeal, as does the prosecutor (unlike in the UK). Thus it can be seen that a case can go backwards and forwards depending on who is doing the appealing. I can tell you for a fact that in Italy, if you are found guilty at the merits court stage, and then again at the appeal stage, there is no way the Supreme Court has the power to declare you ;not guilty'. The protocol is for it to send it back down to the lower court to correct the error in the point of law appealed.

The only time in history anyone in Italy has been freed in such a case under para 2 insufficient evidence in the aforesaid manner was the Barcelona bombers, Andreotti and Berlusconi. These were using political loopholes.

The fact Knox and Sollecito got off on this loophole is all todo with Bongiorno being familiar with Andreotti's case and offering it as a suggestion to Marasca and Bruno.

Given that out of hundreds of thousands of cases every year ONLY Knox and Sollecito got off in this manner, can you now comprehend just how irregular the whole thing was. They were not exonerated or declared innocent. M&B spell it out large that the pair were present at the crime, that the burglary was staged, that the pair lied outrageously and that there was more than one person involved.

These are the objective facts.


There is no escaping them with clever witticisms.
The case being the only example of X (if true, which I doubt coming from you, but idc if it is or not) wouldn't be surprising, because it's among the top 10 most famous non-political/military murder trials in history, which tends to influence things.

Like if Kate Middleton went to Denny's it'd probably result in several this is only time the Denny's staff did X. You know what I'm saying?

It's only famous because of Amanda Knox, because of legions of people obsessed with her. She's a tabloid star on the level of a British royal, or pop diva. Why they're (you're) obsessed with her I have no idea. I'm obsessed with why they're obsessed. It makes my obsession a deeper, more sophisticated level. Like a post ironic hipster. It's pretty chill.

Last edited by bagels; 2nd October 2022 at 09:29 AM.
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 2nd October 2022, 09:21 AM   #2746
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Courts work like this. You are arrested by the police. The police contact the CPS to obtain authority to charge you with a specific offence or several. You are brought before a magistrates court to plead.......
There's no point in reading much further than Vixen's first sentence. No, this is not how 'the' courts work.

Even within countries like Canada which has a unified criminal code for the whole country, provinces within have major differences in the way their courts conduct justice.

Between countries? It is ludicrous in the extreme for anyone to claim that they know the way 'the courts' operate.

Bizarre that this tripe would be repeated, repeated, and repeated as if it was putting the coup de grace to debate.
__________________
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 2nd October 2022, 09:23 AM   #2747
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There was only one Human Right Article Knox succeeded in: that was under Article 6 right to a fair trial, as her lawyer was given a crumb of comfort for losing the substantial part of the claim under Article 3, as they managed to use the Bonsigna case, which was nothing to do with her calunnia conviction, to say she should have had an Italian interpreter when she offered to accuse Patrick.
The above post by Vixen contains a falsehood.

The facts are that the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy lists THREE (3) violations of the Convention by Italy. Each one is significant.

Here's a summary from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the violations of international law found by the ECHR:

Quote:
The case concerns the lack of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police in 2007, during the questioning of the applicant, a young woman of foreign nationality and language, subsequently convicted for malicious accusation in the context of criminal proceedings concerning the murder and rape of her flat mate (violation of Article 3 in its procedural limb).

The case also concerns the restriction on the applicant’s access to legal assistance during her questioning by the police, which the European Court found to have had irretrievably impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings (violation of Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 c))

and the inadequate assistance provided to the applicant by an interpreter during the police questioning (violation of Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 e)).
To repeat, these are the violations of international law, the European Convention on Human Rights, committed by Italy as found by the ECHR:

1. Violation of Article 3 (procedural limb) - an intentional failure by Italy to investigate a credible claim of mistreatment by the authorities;

2. Violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c - an intentional failure by Italy to provide a lawyer to an accused person (at the beginning of the proceedings against her) leading to an unfair trial and wrongful conviction;

3. Violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3e - an intentional failure by Italy to provide a fair interpreter to an accused person (at the beginning of the proceedings against her) leading to an unfair trial and wrongful conviction.

Source:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517
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 2nd October 2022, 09:47 AM   #2748
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,046
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Courts work like this. You are arrested by the police. The police contact the CPS to obtain authority to charge you with a specific offence or several. You are brought before a magistrates court to plead. If it is a minor offence and you plead guilty you are dealt with there and then. End. If a serious offence, you are brought before the magistrate and the prosecutor asks you be remanded in custody. The magistrate either accepts or refuses and lets you ut on bail. You case is referred to a crown court, such as the Old Bailey. You are brought before it and you plead 'not guilty' so you are listed for a trial.

The merits trial is extremely important because this is your only chance to put forward your defence and bring in witnesses, some expert. The prosecution do likewise and you are told of all of the evidence and the issues in advance. A trail commences which is as fair as possible to the defendant. The defendant is found guilty after the court has heard ALL of the evidence put before it.

In England & Wales, this can be appealed, as all decisions by a judge can be, however, in practice, once found guilty that is the end of the matter. If it does successfully go to an appeal court on a point of law, then all the appeal court can do is to refer it back to the original lower court, should you win your appeal. Should you lose your appeal that is the end of the matter. You can ask permission to take it to Supreme Court on a point of law or constitution. The Supreme Court has no power to acquit you except for an extremely narrow band of reasons, such as 'miscarriage of justice' and even then it is far more likely to send it back down for a retrial.

In Italy, all defendants have the automatic right of appeal, as does the prosecutor (unlike in the UK). Thus it can be seen that a case can go backwards and forwards depending on who is doing the appealing. I can tell you for a fact that in Italy, if you are found guilty at the merits court stage, and then again at the appeal stage, there is no way the Supreme Court has the power to declare you ;not guilty'. The protocol is for it to send it back down to the lower court to correct the error in the point of law appealed.

The only time in history anyone in Italy has been freed in such a case under para 2 insufficient evidence in the aforesaid manner was the Barcelona bombers, Andreotti and Berlusconi. These were using political loopholes.

The fact Knox and Sollecito got off on this loophole is all todo with Bongiorno being familiar with Andreotti's case and offering it as a suggestion to Marasca and Bruno.

Given that out of hundreds of thousands of cases every year ONLY Knox and Sollecito got off in this manner, can you now comprehend just how irregular the whole thing was. They were not exonerated or declared innocent. M&B spell it out large that the pair were present at the crime, that the burglary was staged, that the pair lied outrageously and that there was more than one person involved.

These are the objective facts.


There is no escaping them with clever witticisms.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
There's no point in reading much further than Vixen's first sentence. No, this is not how 'the' courts work.

Even within countries like Canada which has a unified criminal code for the whole country, provinces within have major differences in the way their courts conduct justice.

Between countries? It is ludicrous in the extreme for anyone to claim that they know the way 'the courts' operate.

Bizarre that this tripe would be repeated, repeated, and repeated as if it was putting the coup de grace to debate.
There are at least FOUR (4) false statements about Italian law and the Knox - Sollecito case in Vixen's post.

Vixen confuses the legal system of England and Wales with that of Italy. They are quite different.

Vixen, probably in order to make further false claims, states that in Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) does not have the legal authority to fully overrule and issue a not-guilty verdict if both a first instance court and an appeal court in Italy have found an accused person guilty. That statement is untrue.

In the Knox - Sollecito case and other cases, CSC review will be directed largely to the immediate judgment being appealed. If it finds that that judgment was totally without merit due to one or more errors in the logical construction of the facts from the alleged evidence, and finds that the alleged evidence critical to the finding of guilt by the lower court was inadmissible or unlawfully entered into the trial or otherwise unusable, and recognizes that no new evidence can be gathered, the CSC has justification in annulling the appealed verdict with referral. That is why Italian law includes CPP Article 620 paragraph 1 subparagraph L. A referral would serve no reasonable purpose in those circumstances; the Italian courts are under an obligation to conduct trials within a reasonable time.
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 2nd October 2022, 12:45 PM   #2749
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Be that as it may, all you know about Guede's life experience is what has been written about him by others, and one or two letters and prison diary written by Guede. I am guessing you believe Nina Burleigh's depiction of Guede as an itinerant bum, when in fact his upbringing, after a shaky start, was little different from any other middle-class Italian. Clearly, American Burleigh was revealing her own racist attitudes in assuming he was a lesser person than her heroes, Sollecito and Knox.

On the one hand, Guede's 'memoirs' might indeed be a crock of self-serving ****, like Knox' and Sollecito's (I didn't see anyone criticise their accounts...?) on the other hand, you can't assume his life experiences are invalid if he 'plays the race card', as Stacyhs calls it.
OH, do stop embarrassing yourself with this drivel, Vix. Accusing people of racism seems to be your new 'go-to' tactic now. That's at least 3 people you've accused of that.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2022, 12:55 PM   #2750
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post


FACT: Guede is black.

FACT: Guede killed Meredith Kercher.
FACT: Guede claimed the 'real killer' said "Black man found, Black man
guilty".

FACT: No 'left-handed man wearing a Napapijri jacket and white hat with
a red band' existed.

FACT: Guede lied about what this non-existent 'killer' said.
FACT: Guede attempted to use his race as a motive for why he didn't 'help'
Meredith and fled the county.


FACT: That is Guede playing the race card.

FIFY
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have never known anyone so assiduously evade the facts.


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 2nd October 2022, 12:59 PM   #2751
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You must have changed your mind then because I distinctly recall you raging about the bent Italian cops railroading the poor sweet American angels.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Are you hallucinating posts where you think I said any of that? Or is this misrepresentation (aka 'lying') about what I said deliberate? Because it has to be at least one of them.
So you're going with choice #2, I see.
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 2nd October 2022, 01:08 PM   #2752
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Do try and follow more closely. If the trial was so "fair" then why was the appeal granted? And then that 'fair' trial overturned?

Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Are you hallucinating posts where you think I said any of that? Or is this misrepresentation (aka 'lying') about what I said deliberate? Because it has to be at least one of them.

By the way, Massei and Nencini were also expunged but since when has that stopped you from referring to them as if they still have any merit?

You saying "I" don't have debate or logic on my agenda is beyond ironic. As I said earlier, I'm not the one handwaving away the forensic evidence like negative TMB tests, piss poor DNA analysis that has been discredited by far more experts than uphold it (you've never presented other experts who do no matter how many times it's been requested), and the many and various ways the SP broke anti-contamination protocols. And I also don't lie about what other posters have said. That's your 'debate' tactic.
Reasoning with you is like trying to plait a bucket of live eels. Do look up how criminal courts and trials work.
I see you don't deny what I said is true, but instead produce this predictable "Look! Squirrel!" insult.
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 2nd October 2022, 01:58 PM   #2753
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What is this penchant of yours for misrepresenting (lying) about what has been said? It's grown quite tiresome and predictable. Do you think people here can't read?

First of all, I was speaking directly about ONE convicted murderer, Guede...not some vague "African guy"... well known for his lies as both the trial judges and his own foster family have supported as part of his character. No where did I say, or even imply, that "any book written by a Black guy will be 'playing the race card' or that "any Black guy complaining about treatment in the justice system must be 'playing the race card'."

I repeat: your virtue signaling by attempting to be the anti-racist defender falls flat on its face. All it's doing is revealing even more the dishonest tactics you resort. Stop embarrassing yourself.
How do you know Guede's book is 'playing the race card' when you don't even know what is in it?
From his history. I quoted his statement from Leosini's interview. Do you believe that anyone said "Black man found, black man convicted" to Guede? If so, then you have to believe Guede is totally innocent and his story is the truth. If not, then you must admit he made it up. And if so, that is playing the race card.


Quote:
So how come it is very important to note that Guede's foster family despaired of Guede's lying but without even noting that Sollecito's own father wanted to put his drug-experimenting wayward son into drug rehabilitation and rang him up a dozen times a day as he did not trust him?
Nice attempt at whataboutism, there! But I'll answer it anyway: because one has nothing to do with the other. It's just another one of your attempted red herrings.
Nice touch with the claim that his father " rang him up a dozen times a day as he did not trust him" which you pulled straight out of your backside.

Quote:
Sollecito's own father wanted to put his drug-experimenting wayward son into drug rehabilitation
I've seen this claimed before but never with any citation. Do you have one? As the saying goes: put up or shut up.

Quote:
Why the discrimination, Stacyhs?
Why the lies, Vixen?
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 2nd October 2022, 02:19 PM   #2754
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Does your alleged Frankl have a history of playing that card? Of constantly lying? Has he gone on TV and made statements like this:

At 1:19:17

Leosini: Rudy, why do you think AK accused Lumumba?

Guede, Yet, I have come to a clear opinion: in that house when I bumped into that man that I didn't know and who didn't know me and who spoke with Amanda who was outside, and told her "There's someone inside" I think he told her there's a person of color in the house. What I want to say is that, had Amanda seen me, she'd have thrown her false accusation against me to defend herself. But when she heard there was a person of color in the house, to cover her ass...pardon my French, she resorted to Patrick Lumumba's name, because, indeed that evening, she had a text from PL telling her not to come to work. Had she received one from Michael Jordan, she'd have accused him instead."
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Remember, Ficarra said SHE brought up Rudy and BEFORE the text message to Lumumba was ever mentioned. Once again Guede is lying and trying to use racism in his defense.


As for Trump, he claims he sent a donation but he is infamous for claiming donations that he never actually made. There is no evidence that he ever actually sent a dime. He's a also a pathological liar.
Erm, Knox remains convicted of falsely accusing Lumumba of being the rapist and murderer of Meredith Kercher.
Erm, that has ZERO to do with the topic or what I said above. Once again, you attempt to evade responding with a red herring. Your tactic became so predictable and obvious long ago. It fools no one.


Quote:
In the UK the equivalent crime is 'subverting the course of justice' and in the US 'obstruction of justice' a Federal crime (not a minor slander misdemeanor that you like to falsely claim).
Yeah, yeah, yeah....the same old song and dance and lies we've heard so many times before. Trouble is, Vix, Knox wasn't convicted of "obstruction" or anything close to it. She was convicted of calunnia and the closest thing to that in US law is defamation. On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. On the state level, Knox's state of Washington also has no criminal defamation law; defamation is considered a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I've presented citations for that many times. You just choose to ignore it. One the other hand, you've not once presented a shred of evidence that Knox's calunnia conviction is "the equivalent of obstruction of justice".

Stop trying to play with the adults and go back to the TJMK sandbox.
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 2nd October 2022, 02:42 PM   #2755
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. The fact of the matter is Guede was found guilty of being an accessory (=felony murder). His judgment clearly states that it was another person that killed the victim.

I know that is not what you want to hear or believe but simply rolling out semantics doesn't change the facts.
Oh, dear. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but it's also a 'judicial fact' that Knox and Sollecito didn't kill Kercher, either. Their judgment clearly states that another person killed the victim. Do you want to admit that, according to your logic, that makes them innocent?
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 2nd October 2022, 02:44 PM   #2756
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Is Vixen attempting to claim to be a legal expert again?
Some people graduate from the Law School of Pulled It Out of My Ass.
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 2nd October 2022, 03:18 PM   #2757
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,435
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, dear. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but it's also a 'judicial fact' that Knox and Sollecito didn't kill Kercher, either. Their judgment clearly states that another person killed the victim. Do you want to admit that, according to your logic, that makes them innocent?
If it is judicial facts we're after, then it is a judicial fact that all that the so called 'blood evidence' proved.....

..... was that AK and RS were in the cottage after the murder and in another part of the house.....

Which no one denies. In my mind that judicial fact is tantalizingly close to the official, judicial position being....

They didn't do it, nor could they have. But that's just me.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd October 2022 at 03:20 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 2nd October 2022, 03:23 PM   #2758
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I don't know if he (or Amanda Knox) publicly stated the amount of his donation.

For his claim of a donation, See:

https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Trum.../04/id/413148/
He doesn't state the amount he claims to have given. This article shows he's mostly all claim and no money and he's given the most money from his charity to.....himself. To the point his charity was dissolved by court order:
Quote:
For as long as he has been rich and famous, Donald Trump has also wanted people to believe he is generous. He spent years constructing an image as a philanthropist by appearing at charity events and by making very public — even nationally televised — promises to give his own money away.

It was, in large part, a facade. A months-long investigation by The Washington Post has not been able to verify many of Trump’s boasts about his philanthropy.

Instead, throughout his life in the spotlight, whether as a businessman, television star or presidential candidate, The Post found that Trump had sought credit for charity he had not given — or had claimed other people’s giving as his own.
Quote:
In public appearances, Trump often made it appear that he gave far more.

Trump promised to give away the proceeds of Trump University. He promised to donate the salary he earned from “The Apprentice.” He promised to give personal donations to the charities chosen by contestants on “Celebrity Apprentice.” He promised to donate $250,000 to a charity helping Israeli soldiers and veterans.
Instead, The Post found that his personal giving has almost disappeared entirely in recent years. After calling 420-plus charities with some connection to Trump, The Post found only one personal gift from Trump between 2008 and the spring of this year. That was a gift to the Police Athletic League of New York City, in 2009. It was worth less than $10,000.
I still question that he ever actually sent any money.
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 2nd October 2022, 05:23 PM   #2759
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 860
Just for the record:
Rudy Guede: “Non ho scritto il libro perché le persone mi credano, ma perché possano conoscermi senza pregiudizi…”
Google translation:
Rudy Guede: "I didn't write the book so that people believe me, but so that they can know me without prejudice ..."
...---...
__________________
"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 2nd October 2022, 05:47 PM   #2760
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,435
Rudy Guede's book is out, it's about the 'four Rudys", as he writes about his life, including his struggles in prison.

As far as the "Omicidio di Meredith Kercher" is concerned, the book reports "no new truths".

One of Guede's supporters (Claudio Mariani of the Criminological Studies Center) said at the book launch, "With our association we volunteer in prison and we always try to know the man, not the crime..."

Also, "I have raised some doubts that have haunted me for 15 years. I have no certainty of the innocence of the people I relate to, but in Rudy's case I have some doubts about his guilt. Today, however, we are out of it and the goal is to pick up the story from where it left off."

That's it. There is no elaboration as to what those doubts may be. Who knows, Mariani could very well suspect the Perugian authorities of manufacturing a case against Guede, or to have not protected him - as a low level informant caught up in a crime.

Mariani seems to give no hint who those people "I relate to" are, or why they might not be innocent.

However, I am also at the mercy of Google Translate.......

http://www.tusciaweb.eu/2022/10/rudy...za-pregiudizi/

ooops..... ETA - Methos beat me to it! Figures. That guy is a one man Library of Congress.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd October 2022 at 05:49 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.