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

Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:45 AM   #3361
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,097
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
For the case Knox v. Italy, the ECHR has, since its original publication on 24 January 2019 of an English-language press release summary of the case, also published a legal summary. The legal summary may provide a more concise summation of the judgment.

The legal summary site is:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-12309%22]}

The text is as follows:

Knox v. Italy - 76577/13

Judgment 24.1.2019 [Section I]

Article 3

Effective investigation

Lack of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Article 6

Article 6-3-c

Defence through legal assistance

Use in evidence of a malicious accusation, made to the police by a person in a state of shock, without access to a lawyer: violation

Article 6-3-e

Free assistance of interpreter

Interpreter having acted as a mediator and with a motherly attitude during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Facts – At the time of the events Ms Knox, a 20 year-old American student, had been in Italy for about two months. She had found a temporary job in a pub run by D.L. Following the discovery of the body of a girl living in the same flat as the applicant, who was then present on the premises with her boyfriend, they were both interviewed by the police and their telephone conversations were monitored.

On 6 November 2007 at 1.45 a.m., the applicant was interviewed by three police officers and A.D., who had been called as an interpreter. She stated, among other things, that D.L. had committed the crimes. The public prosecutor then interviewed the applicant at 5.45 a.m., with A.D. and some police officers being present. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during that interview. At 8.30 a.m., the applicant, her boyfriend and D.L. were formally arrested on charges of sexual assault and murder. Having provided an alibi, D.L. was later released.

Around 1 p.m. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant spoke of her state of shock and confusion during her last incriminating interview under police pressure, and she retracted her accusation against D.L. However, on 14 May 2008, she was formally charged with bringing a malicious accusation.

Following a hearing on 13 March 2009, at which the applicant again alleged that she had been ill-treated during the interview of 6 November 2007 and complained about the conduct of the interpreter A.D., her defence requested the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor’s office, but nothing happened. Further proceedings were brought against the applicant for falsely accusing the police officers and prosecutor who had questioned her on 6 November 2007.

In September 2015 the Court of Cassation acquitted the applicant on the charges of murder and sexual assault and observed that her conviction and three-year prison sentence for the malicious accusation against D.L. had already become final. The applicant was also acquitted on the charge of falsely accusing the police officers and the prosecutor.

Law

Article 3 (procedural limb): On 6 November 2007, a few hours after making incriminating statements about D.L. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant had clearly explained that she had been in an extreme state of shock and confusion and that the police had put pressure on her. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 3 October 2011, had concluded that the applicant had in fact been subjected to a genuine degree of torment, placing her in an unbearable psychological situation from which she had sought to extract herself by incriminating D.L.

In addition, the interpreter had been acting more as a “mediator”, even though she was not required to go beyond her interpreting duties. One of the police officers had even embraced and caressed the applicant and had clasped her hands, thus clearly behaving inappropriately, especially in a context where she had made accusations subsequently characterised as malicious which had resulted in her conviction.

The above-mentioned behaviour, which shed light on the general conditions in which the applicant had been interviewed, should have alerted the national authorities to the possibility that her dignity and capacity for self-determination had been impaired.

In spite of her repeated complaints, the treatment complained of had not led to any investigation capable of shedding light on the facts and on any responsibilities. In particular, her lawyer’s request of 13 March 2009 for the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor had remained unanswered. Moreover, the criminal proceedings against the applicant for bringing a malicious accusation against the authorities – which had in fact led to her acquittal, as there was no evidence that her account of what had happened was inaccurate – could not constitute an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)

(a) Applicability of Article 6 – The Court reiterated that a “criminal charge” existed from the moment that an individual was officially notified by the competent authority of an allegation that he had committed a criminal offence, or from the point at which his situation had been substantially affected by actions taken by the authorities as a result of a suspicion against him. The applicant could certainly be regarded as a suspect by the time she made her statement to the public prosecutor, at 5.45 a.m. on 6 November 2007. Therefore by 5.45 a.m. at the latest, there had been a criminal charge against her within the meaning of the Convention.

(b) Whether there were any compelling reasons to justify the restriction of her right of access to a lawyer – The Government had relied on the interpretation of domestic case-law to point out that the impugned statements of 6 November 2007, even though no lawyer had been present, could be used in evidence, as they incorporated in themselves a criminal offence. The Court noted, however, that this interpretation was general in scope and the Government had failed to establish that there had been exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify the restrictions on the applicant’s right. Thus there was no compelling reason capable of justifying the restriction on her access to a lawyer.

(c) Overall fairness of the proceedings – A few hours after the interview of 6 November 2007, the applicant, who was vulnerable as a foreigner and as a young woman of 20, not having been in Italy for long and not being fluent in Italian, had promptly gone back on her statements. Nevertheless, six months later, on 14 May 2008, she was charged with malicious accusation.

The impugned statements had been taken in a context of heightened psychological pressure, which had not been investigated. And those statements had constituted in themselves the offence with which she was charged and therefore the real evidence on the basis of which she had been found guilty of bringing a malicious accusation. Lastly, the record of the applicant’s interview at 5.45 a.m. did not indicate that she had been notified of her procedural rights.

Consequently, the restriction of the applicant’s access to legal assistance during her interview of 6 November 2007 at 5.45 a.m. had irretrievably impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e): The fact that the interpreter A.D. had played the role of a mediator, adopting a motherly attitude, while the applicant, having been charged with a criminal offence, was formulating her statement, had gone beyond the duties expected of an interpreter. However, the authorities had failed to assess the conduct of A.D., to examine whether her interpreting assistance had been consistent with the safeguards under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e) of the Convention, or to consider whether that conduct had had an impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In addition, in the relevant police record there was no mention of the exchanges between the applicant and A.D. during the interview of 6 November 2007.

That initial failure had thus had repercussions for other rights, which were separate but closely related to the right at issue, and had undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 3 in its substantive limb, as there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that the applicant had actually sustained the inhuman or degrading treatment of which she had complained.

Article 41: EUR 10,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(See also Salduz v. Turkey [GC], 36391/02, 27 November 2008, Information Note 113; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], 22978/05, 1 June 2010, Information Note 131; Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, 33192/07 and 33194/07, 25 June 2013; Baytar v. Turkey, 45440/04, 14 October 2014, Information Note 178; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 50541/08 et al., 13 September 2016, Information Note 199; Beuze v. Belgium [GC], 71409/10, 9 November 2018, Information Note 223; and the Factsheet on Police arrest and assistance of a lawyer)
What we see here is the paramount importance for all judicial process to be accountable to completely independent auditors in these extreme cases.
Italy could never produce this document on its own.
An international protocol requiring a process of this nature should be an urgent priority.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:02 PM   #3362
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,672
"Amanda Knox talk on why truth matters draws crowd at Roanoke College
....

The case continues to captivate the world , exemplified by the hundreds of people who packed Olin Theater, an alternate venue set up to accommodate more people. A couple of hundred people still were turned away.
....

“When the prosecution and media crafted their story, they created this doppelganger version of me to fit that story,” Knox said. “Foxy Knoxy, she was the blank slate to which everyone could project their fears, their judgment and their uncertainties. People really liked those stories: the ‘man eater,’ the ‘she-devil.’ And they convicted her.”

In 2011, an appeals court cleared her of the murder conviction and ordered her to be freed. She returned to her hometown of Seattle, where she continued to be tailed by paparazzi and harassed on the internet.

After more battles with the courts, Italy’s Supreme Court eventually blamed “stunning flaws” in the investigation and heightened media attention that put pressure on local authorities to find the guilty parties."

Source: https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/s...9b056c90a.html
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:49 PM   #3363
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,878
In another forum, they have turned to attacking Knox's activity in the Innocence Project, speaking at venues on wrongful convictions (she's being PAID! Oh, the HORROR!), hosting a TV show (Scarlet Letter Report) and her Podcast. According to some on there, she's eager to be a "celebrity" and doesn't care about the Kercher's feelings. One response to her show The Scarlet Letter Report was "Do we really need a show on slut shaming of women in the media? This same person's response to her podcast on wrongful convictions was "Who needs a show on wrongful convictions?" Unbelievable
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:47 PM   #3364
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,829
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
According to some on there, she's eager to be a "celebrity" and doesn't care about the Kercher's feelings.
It's amazing how some can read other people's minds.... in this case Knox or the Kerchers. They should turn their attention to picking winning lottery numbers.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:32 AM   #3365
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Did the defense formally request an independent test? If not, that sure looks like negligence. But if so, and the judge refused, that sure looks like prejudice.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Whether or not the defense requested an independent test, the judge's refusal to order a test suggests prejudice.
Surely a competent investigation team would have tested a possible semen stain at the scene of a possible rape straight away, not waited for a judge to decide whether the evidence required testing months after the fact.

Then again any competent investigators would have tested all parts of the victims underwear straight away as well.
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:33 AM   #3366
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,672
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Did the defense formally request an independent test? If not, that sure looks like negligence. But if so, and the judge refused, that sure looks like prejudice.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Whether or not the defense requested an independent test, the judge's refusal to order a test suggests prejudice.
Originally Posted by Mr Fied View Post
Surely a competent investigation team would have tested a possible semen stain at the scene of a possible rape straight away, not waited for a judge to decide whether the evidence required testing months after the fact.

Then again any competent investigators would have tested all parts of the victims underwear straight away as well.
Exactly.

And the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, explaining the reasoning for the definitive and final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges, states that the investigation was ineffective due to its "clamorous" or stunning "failures" including "culpable omissions of investigative activity". An excerpt from the MR:

"An objectively wavering {trial} process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result of clamorous failures, or investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
Link to PDF: Supreme Court Motivation Report (English translation) p. 25
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:51 AM   #3367
TomG
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
In another forum, they have turned to attacking Knox's activity in the Innocence Project, speaking at venues on wrongful convictions (she's being PAID! Oh, the HORROR!), hosting a TV show (Scarlet Letter Report) and her Podcast. According to some on there, she's eager to be a "celebrity" and doesn't care about the Kercher's feelings. One response to her show The Scarlet Letter Report was "Do we really need a show on slut shaming of women in the media? This same person's response to her podcast on wrongful convictions was "Who needs a show on wrongful convictions?" Unbelievable
YouTube is usually the pro-guilt hang-out, though they've been quiet since the ECtHR judgement. It's usually the same clueless, misinformed rubbish that goes down, spearheaded by a certain Harry Rag whom I've had a few disagreements with. He was still banging on about mixed blood, Garofano and his high RFU peaks and high luminol reaction indicating blood, blah blah blah. I pasted Stefanoni' pre-trial statement that a negative result with TMB meant no blood in her opinion, and he almost went into shock. Rag is so seriously clueless about the case it didn't take much to kick his arse and shut him up. Where do people like him go to now?

Last edited by TomG; Today at 06:52 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:49 AM   #3368
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,829
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
YouTube is usually the pro-guilt hang-out, though they've been quiet since the ECtHR judgement. It's usually the same clueless, misinformed rubbish that goes down, spearheaded by a certain Harry Rag whom I've had a few disagreements with. He was still banging on about mixed blood, Garofano and his high RFU peaks and high luminol reaction indicating blood, blah blah blah. I pasted Stefanoni' pre-trial statement that a negative result with TMB meant no blood in her opinion, and he almost went into shock. Rag is so seriously clueless about the case it didn't take much to kick his arse and shut him up. Where do people like him go to now?
These are the people who are now claiming that the ECHR ruling on Knox's calunnia conviction (being unsafe) "in reality" represents a serious set-back to her. These are the people who once claimed that Mignini dropping his lawsuit against Sollecito and Gumbel (with the parallel criminal charge against the pair being dropped) represented a serious set-back to the pair, who predicted (by the usual suspects of guilter-nutters) that S & G would be issuing formal apologies to Mignini within the week.

It's been a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong week!

These are the people who back in 2011 during the Hellmann appeals trial (which eventually acquitted S & K) reacted to the Conti & Vecchiotti report (which demolished Stefanoni's Scientific Police work) by saying that, "no matter, there is still all the other evidence."

These are the people................. <fill in the blank>.

Harry Rag set the tone for the guilter-nutter PR campaign, as he would comment-bomb every online newsstory about this with his cut-and-paste claims, like mixed blood. Harry Rag set the tone by replacing evidence with sheer repetition of talking points, mainly gleaned from Mignini's prosecution case at the Massei trial of 2009.

It was not until Spring 2010 and the publication of the Massei motivations report that the world found out that even in convicting, Judge Massei did not believe most of what Mignini had presented. Massei had found - no mixed blood, Knox and Kercher actually had been friends, there had been no sex-game gone wrong (Massai had found that the assault on Kercher had been initiated by Rudy who Massei noted did not need any spurring on by anyone else to bother women), Sollecito had called the Carabinieri BEFORE the arrival of the Postal Police, etc, etc, etc.

That was the convicting judge who had trashed Mignini's original case, and had to invent other factoids to justify the verdict.

Harry Rag et al. simply ignored all that and carried on with their cut-and-paste repetitions, replacing evidence with them.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; Today 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:44 AM   #3369
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,878
Quote:
These are the people who back in 2011 during the Hellmann appeals trial (which eventually acquitted S & K) reacted to the Conti & Vecchiotti report (which demolished Stefanoni's Scientific Police work) by saying that, "no matter, there is still all the other evidence."
(#3368)

Indeed. In that same forum, when confronted with the fact that no evidence whatsoever was found of the pair in the bedroom, they resort to the "but all the LIES they told! The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming!" When they refer to all the LIES, it's primarily things they said during the interrogations which could not possibly be the result of confusion, fear, threats, intimidation. They were all deliberate LIES.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:04 AM   #3370
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,829
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
(#3368)

Indeed. In that same forum, when confronted with the fact that no evidence whatsoever was found of the pair in the bedroom, they resort to the "but all the LIES they told! The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming!" When they refer to all the LIES, it's primarily things they said during the interrogations which could not possibly be the result of confusion, fear, threats, intimidation. They were all deliberate LIES.
When confronted with "there's no evidence of either of the pair in the murder room", Harry Rag did a sleight of hand.

He'd say, "but the whole cottage is the crime scene, not just the victim's room". He'd repeat that as if he'd delivered the ultimate debating point......

...... never addressing that there was no evidence of either of the pair in the murder room!!!!!!!
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:07 PM   #3371
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
(#3368)

Indeed. In that same forum, when confronted with the fact that no evidence whatsoever was found of the pair in the bedroom, they resort to the "but all the LIES they told! The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming!" When they refer to all the LIES, it's primarily things they said during the interrogations which could not possibly be the result of confusion, fear, threats, intimidation. They were all deliberate LIES.
The nutters are very vocal in attacking Amanda for telling numerous lies on youtube comments. In the comments of one youtube video I posed a series of questions regarding Amanda and lying below. For some strange reason the haters were unwilling to answer my questions and their silence was deafening

The haters constantly bang on about Amanda telling numerous lies. Could all those who attack Amanda for lying answer a few questions :-

1) As can be seen from the list below, there are numerous examples where people have told lies and lies have been used against Amanda. Why do those who constantly bang on about Amanda telling numerous lies never mention this?

2) How is that Amanda who has had lies told and used against her is relentlessly attacked for lying?

3) The list I gave of the instances where people have told lies or used lies against Amanda all had one thing in common in that the lies worked against Amanda. It is clear the haters have no problem with lying if it works against Amanda because they either say nothing about those who told the lies or support those who told them. For instance, when the media fed false stories about Amanda the haters never complained because these lies were damaging to Amanda. The haters never complained when (need name of witnesses) gave false testimony or about pro guilt books writing falsehoods. The haters slavishly support the prosecution because their lies were damaging to Amanda. The haters had no problem with Nencini writing a motivation report full of lies because he found Amanda guilty. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when they feel it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies about Amanda and use lies against Amanda as long they work against Amanda but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit this? How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying whilst they feel it is perfectly acceptable for witnesses to lie, for corrupt prosecutors to spread false information to the media and commit perjury in court, for the media to spread false stories, for Guede to falsely accuse Amanda of being at the cottage when he killed Meredith, to lie to Amanda she had HIV and for judges to convict people on motivation reports filled with lies as long as they work against Amanda?

4) As can be seen from my post on ISF below, there are numerous instances when the haters have lied themselves. They have spread malicious falsehoods about people, lied about their credentials, set up a fake wiki riddled with falsehoods, spread lies on Amazon reviews and there is a poster called Vixen who habitually lies in her posts on International Skeptics Forum. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of lying themselves and then attacking Amanda for lying?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11333243

Lies told by a hater called Vixen who posts on ISF

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575


5) If Amanda was such a prolific liar, how do you explain the arguments the haters have to resort to sustain this claim? Below is a post from International Skeptics which shows that a hater called Harry Rag when asked to list the lies told by Amanda, he was unable to do so and could only list lies told by Raffaele. If Amanda has told so many lies, why could Harry Rag not list these lies? As can be seen from my post, the poster Vixen has made four false allegations Amanda has lied and repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda has told numerous lies. If Amanda has told so many lies, why does this poster have to resort to lying to sustain this claim? When it comes to the haters, I have no problem listing the lies told by the haters and don’t have to resort to lying to show the haters have lied.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post10430492

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post12390810

6) How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying whilst falsely accusing Amanda of lying?

7) The poster Vixen has told numerous lies about Amanda such as Amanda showed no grief, she taking £300 euros a week from her bank account. How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of spreading lies about Amanda and then attacking Amanda for lying?

8) How do the haters explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when Amanda has done nothing remotely comparable to what the haters have done :-
• Set up a fake wiki about the case riddled with falsehoods.
• Spread malicious falsehoods about people.
• Come on internet forums and lie on and industrial scale in their posts.
• Used Amazon reviews to spread lies.
• Lying about credentials.
• Attacking someone for lying whilst spreading lies about them.
• Attacked someone for lying whilst feeling it is perfectly acceptable to use lies against someone but are too dishonest to admit this.
• Falsely accuse someone of lying.

Instances where lies have been used against Amanda.

• The media spread false lies about Amanda :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/

• Books, films and documentaries filled with falsehoods have told lies about Amanda
John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-...l-convictions/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.or...1e0c2cd6559958

The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia.

Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media.

A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

• There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner. Curalto initially said he did not see Amanda and Raffaele but changed his story later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Like Quintavelle, Curalto lied at least once. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

• Amanda’s acquittal under Hellman was annulled on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. In addition Amanda was convicted by Nencini on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors".

• As per the links below, the prosecution used lies against Amanda on numerous occasions. In addition to the lies listed below, Amanda was lied to she had HIV by the prosecution. Prosecutor Comodi lied to Amanda in court by asking Amanda why she called her mother at twelve when phone records show Amanda called her mother at 12.47.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

• As per the link below, Patrick Lumumba told lies about Amanda.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/

• Rudy lied Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage when he killed Meredith.

Last edited by Welshman; Today at 02:09 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 06:01 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.