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 15th June 2019, 05:05 PM   #161
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,070
What will wild and crazzzzzzy Amanda do next!

Pay no attention to Meredith's blood dripping off Rudy's hands.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 05:27 PM   #162
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,934
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This Krissy G needs to get her facts straight. She wrote in the comments section on TJMK:
<..... sinister deletia .....>
It must be nice to be on TJMK and be able to write whatever tripe comes into one's head without fear of being challenged as to its veracity. But here on ISF, she would be. Perhaps that's why 'KrissyG' never posts here?
It would be good for KrissyG to post here once in a while.

Judging by how over the top some of the claims KrissyG or Vixen have made in the last two days, it must have been a better day for innocence than any of us realize.

These two just invent things. Mostly they claim something then actually post evidence which disproves it!!!

You can't teach that.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 15th June 2019 at 05:33 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 05:30 PM   #163
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It would be good for KrissyG to post here once in a while.

Judging by how over the top some of the claims KrissyG or Vixen have been in the last two days, it must have been a better day for innocence than any of us realize.

These two just invent things. Mostly they claim something then actually post evidence which disproves it!!!

You can't teach that.
At least Vixen would have someone to agree with her here, a compadre so to speak. They seem remarkably in sync. I've even seen them use very similar, if not identical, arguments.
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 15th June 2019, 08:03 PM   #164
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
At least Vixen would have someone to agree with her here, a compadre so to speak. They seem remarkably in sync. I've even seen them use very similar, if not identical, arguments.
They also share an obsessive hatred of Amanda that borders on psychotic. It's an incredibly bizarre behavior when you consider it's motivated by the murder of a complete stranger almost twelve years ago.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 08:28 PM   #165
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,781
Some years ago, a guilter asked me for "counterexamples" in the ECHR's application of its case-law relevant to the case Knox v. Italy, for example, the principles of case-law related to judging alleged violations of Convention Article 6.1 with Article 6.3c. There are, of course, no real counterexamples allowed by the ECHR's method of jurisprudence, which is based upon strict precedence. The ECHR refines, enhances, or redefines case-law so that counterexamples for the same or highly similar facts do not occur.

For example, a guilter claimed that Simons v. Belgium, a decision finding the case inadmissible, was relevant to Knox v. Italy as a counterexample with respect to a violation of Article 6.1 with Article 6.3c. However, examining the text of the decision reveals that Simons applied to the ECHR before her trial had been completed, so there could not be any violation of Article 6.1. Furthermore, the ECHR ruled that a violation of Article 6.3c does not result necessarily in a violation of Article 5 (the right to liberty; Simons had been arrested and detained) because the right to a lawyer, including during the pretrial phase, relates more specifically to the fairness of the trial (Article 6.1). Since the trial had not yet been completed, and there was no indication what the trial court would rule on the admissibility of any pretrial statements, there was no way for the ECHR to judge whether the lack of a lawyer in the pretrial stage would affect the fairness of the trial. Thus, Simons v. Belgium does not apply to Knox v. Italy, where the trial for calunnia was completed with a final judgment of conviction by the Chieffi CSC panel.

In Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, the ECHR judged that Bulgaria had not violated Articles 6.1 with 6.3c because Simeonovi voluntarily confessed only several weeks after obtaining a lawyer; there were no statements or other evidence obtained from Simeonovi during the three initial days after arrest when he had been detained without a lawyer that had been included in the case file or used against him. Again, the facts in Knox v. Italy are quite different: the only evidence of Knox's calunnia were the statements she had made during interrogations (questioning) without a lawyer. Contrary to the letter of Italian law applying on its face to all alleged crimes, this evidence was used against her. According to Italy, this deviation from Italian law was based upon the jurisprudence of the Italian courts. The Chamber judgment found, in accordance with ECHR case-law, that this was a general measure used to deny a lawyer during questioning for evidence to be used against an accused, and therefore not satisfying the need for a "compelling" reason for the denial of a lawyer. Therefore, the Chamber found a violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c.

Last edited by Numbers; 15th June 2019 at 10:22 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:52 AM   #166
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
They also share an obsessive hatred of Amanda that borders on psychotic. It's an incredibly bizarre behavior when you consider it's motivated by the murder of a complete stranger almost twelve years ago.
It's toxic on YouTube, with pro-guilt videos popping up regularly, although nearly all of the pro-guilt comments are misinformed drivel. Face and body reading is all the rage with the most innocent mannerisms being labelled as proof of guilt. The psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Hoots
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:44 AM   #167
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
It's toxic on YouTube, with pro-guilt videos popping up regularly, although nearly all of the pro-guilt comments are misinformed drivel. Face and body reading is all the rage with the most innocent mannerisms being labelled as proof of guilt. The psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Hoots
This posts raises an interesting point. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and there was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP have to rely so heavily on body language to argue their case. Why not just rely on the evidence.
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
Old Yesterday, 04:07 AM   #168
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by toto View Post
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Festival.htm

I suppose the Nigerian bodyguard comment came from the third picture down in this link, but I do not see the relevance of race in the description, and out of interest I do not know how one can tell which African country (of origin possibly , rather than birth) is being represented here. And how can one tell who is paying for this service? I too was rather disturbed by the use of the word "paraphrase" when clearly a misleading impression was created by summarising the CBS item (though I would agree it was a bit snarky).
I am confused. According to some PGP Amanda is a racist which explains why she named Lumumba. If Amanda is so racist, why was she using black bodyguards.
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
Old Yesterday, 05:52 AM   #169
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
I am confused. According to some PGP Amanda is a racist which explains why she named Lumumba. If Amanda is so racist, why was she using black bodyguards.
Yup! Lumumba stated that Amanda allegedly fingered him because he was black. On the other hand Amanda must have protected Rudy because he was black since there are no other reasons.

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:21 AM   #170
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,422
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was told by an insider. The semi-brawl is not in that video. I never said it was.
An insider? My ass. You have no insiders in Italy. NONE.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; Yesterday at 10:20 AM.
acbytesla 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, 10:20 AM   #171
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,686
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
An insider? My ass. Which is where you pulled that tidbit out of. You have no insiders in Italy. NONE.


Well what they have (in low single-digit numbers) is fellow obsessive pro-guilt theorists in Italy, who regularly make long journeys round the country in order to agitate and "report" on the case - i.e. to find inventive new ways to observe things through the clouded lens of their obsession in order to put a heavy pro-guilt, anti-Knox/Sollecito spin on the actual facts.

That's all. So sad.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:04 AM   #172
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
It's toxic on YouTube, with pro-guilt videos popping up regularly, although nearly all of the pro-guilt comments are misinformed drivel. Face and body reading is all the rage with the most innocent mannerisms being labelled as proof of guilt. The psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Hoots
The amount of pure ignorance and misinformation I see posted in the comments section on Knox related articles is mind boggling. Among them, the claim that there was no other suspect than Knox and Sollecito (hello? GUEDE?), that Knox was convicted of "perjury", that Knox was a drug dealer, that Knox was high on cocaine...the list goes on and on. Yet, these people think they know enough about the case to come to a firm decision on her guilt. It scares the crap out of me that these people serve on juries.

Last edited by Stacyhs; Yesterday at 11:08 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:26 AM   #173
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The amount of pure ignorance and misinformation I see posted in the comments section on Knox related articles is mind boggling. Among them, the claim that there was no other suspect than Knox and Sollecito (hello? GUEDE?), that Knox was convicted of "perjury", that Knox was a drug dealer, that Knox was high on cocaine...the list goes on and on. Yet, these people think they know enough about the case to come to a firm decision on her guilt. It scares the crap out of me that these people serve on juries.
The pro-guilt problem is that if the scientific cops had identified the other male traces on the bra-clasp and also tested the sperm evidence they might have got a matching hit and a new lead. I very much doubt if that would have been the case but if they had they could have had far more evidence than they ever did against Raffaele. To say that there was no suspects other than K&S is untrue, they just didn't examine all the possibilities. Selective investigative amnesia methinks.

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:35 AM   #174
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
The pro-guilt problem is that if the scientific cops had identified the other male traces on the bra-clasp and also tested the sperm evidence they might have got a matching hit and a new lead. I very much doubt if that would have been the case but if they had they could have had far more evidence than they ever did against Raffaele. To say that there was no suspects other than K&S is untrue, they just didn't examine all the possibilities. Selective investigative amnesia methinks.

Hoots
There is NO logical reason that suspected sperm stain was not tested. Incredible incompetence by the police and why a judge refused the defense request is beyond any reasoning. I highly doubt the stain would have matched any of the male DNA found on the bra clasp. I think it would have matched Guede and all the DNA on the clasp was simple transfer contamination. If it weren't then we'd have to accept that all those men had touched MK's bra and I just don't think that was the case. Silenzi's could have been there but that would have meant nothing.
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, 12:13 PM   #175
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,422
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well what they have (in low single-digit numbers) is fellow obsessive pro-guilt theorists in Italy, who regularly make long journeys round the country in order to agitate and "report" on the case - i.e. to find inventive new ways to observe things through the clouded lens of their obsession in order to put a heavy pro-guilt, anti-Knox/Sollecito spin on the actual facts.

That's all. So sad.
That may be true. But facts and truth are twisted so much in this person's posts that it is just as likely Vixen made it up. It demonstrates so clearly the PGP's obsession of spinning anything that is positive or protective of Amanda negatively.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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, 03:38 PM   #176
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,686
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is NO logical reason that suspected sperm stain was not tested. Incredible incompetence by the police and why a judge refused the defense request is beyond any reasoning. I highly doubt the stain would have matched any of the male DNA found on the bra clasp. I think it would have matched Guede and all the DNA on the clasp was simple transfer contamination. If it weren't then we'd have to accept that all those men had touched MK's bra and I just don't think that was the case. Silenzi's could have been there but that would have meant nothing.

Oh I strongly suspect that the judge's refusal to mandate the test was intrinsically tied-in with this horrendous (and anachronistic, and unlawful, and anti-judicial) manner in which Italian courtroom judges defer to the position of the prosecutors (who are also in a very real respect their colleagues....). It's this horrible belief that prosecutors are scrupulous "seekers of the truth", that prosecutors have no skin in the game as regards conviction or acquittal, that prosecutors (and their agents) are both expert and of the utmost probity.

So if Mignini and his underlings and the police told the court they made the decision not to test those stains based on sound underlying principles (chief among them being some utter nonsense about not being able to recover/document/analyse shoe print evidence if they had done the tests on the stains)....... well, the judge would have uncritically taken them at their word. And conversely, the judge would have regarded any defence objections as pure mischief-making and/or game playing. After all, if those fine, upstanding, impartial, expert, public-servant prosecutors had said it couldn't/shouldn't be done, then it simply couldn't/shouldn't be done.

I have to say: every time I read Quennell's deluded opinions on the "admired the world over", "outstanding", etc, Italian criminal justice system, it only serves to demonstrate over and over again just how divorced from reality his views (and those of his tiny cadre of acolytes) truly is......
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:00 PM   #177
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
I agree...and I think Nencini's refusal to test the semen stain may have been influenced by Chieffi's pretty clear indication that he wanted the pair convicted.
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, 04:24 PM   #178
IsThisTheLife
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox is in Modena as a commercial enterprise. CBS News reports that she has 'her own personal videographer carefully choregraphing' the whole thing. IOW all the eye dabbing, bowed head nonsense and fleeing from the conference hall after just a few minutes are all carefully scripted. She hired a team of Nigerian bodyguards <shurely shome mishtake> and is flanked by Italian plain clothes policemen. This posse makes it look like there is a lot of media attention when in fact the 'scuffles' seem to have been initiated by Christopher Robinson whom an eye witness says launched himself at the journalists who were miffed at being blocked by the Knox posse.

Expect a ker-ching, ker-ching series of shows and books for Knox out of this conference. Even Mom Edda is in on the jolly.
These posts of yours, on this thread, come across as mostly non-sequiturs and often rather childish. I have to wonder if you actually believe Knox murdered her housemate or you're just trolling (which would explain the childishness).
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:10 PM   #179
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,781
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is NO logical reason that suspected sperm stain was not tested. Incredible incompetence by the police and why a judge refused the defense request is beyond any reasoning. I highly doubt the stain would have matched any of the male DNA found on the bra clasp. I think it would have matched Guede and all the DNA on the clasp was simple transfer contamination. If it weren't then we'd have to accept that all those men had touched MK's bra and I just don't think that was the case. Silenzi's could have been there but that would have meant nothing.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh I strongly suspect that the judge's refusal to mandate the test was intrinsically tied-in with this horrendous (and anachronistic, and unlawful, and anti-judicial) manner in which Italian courtroom judges defer to the position of the prosecutors (who are also in a very real respect their colleagues....). It's this horrible belief that prosecutors are scrupulous "seekers of the truth", that prosecutors have no skin in the game as regards conviction or acquittal, that prosecutors (and their agents) are both expert and of the utmost probity.

So if Mignini and his underlings and the police told the court they made the decision not to test those stains based on sound underlying principles (chief among them being some utter nonsense about not being able to recover/document/analyse shoe print evidence if they had done the tests on the stains)....... well, the judge would have uncritically taken them at their word. And conversely, the judge would have regarded any defence objections as pure mischief-making and/or game playing. After all, if those fine, upstanding, impartial, expert, public-servant prosecutors had said it couldn't/shouldn't be done, then it simply couldn't/shouldn't be done.

I have to say: every time I read Quennell's deluded opinions on the "admired the world over", "outstanding", etc, Italian criminal justice system, it only serves to demonstrate over and over again just how divorced from reality his views (and those of his tiny cadre of acolytes) truly is......
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I agree...and I think Nencini's refusal to test the semen stain may have been influenced by Chieffi's pretty clear indication that he wanted the pair convicted.
I believe that the real reason the prosecution did not want the apparent semen stain tested was that they were confident that DNA profiling it would ID Guede. This evidence would contradict Guede's story and make it more difficult to successfully fabricate a case against Knox and Sollecito.

The judges went along with the prosecution, either for the reasons that LondonJohn suggests, or (perhaps less likely?) they were parties in support of the fabrication. Reading the motivation reports of the Massei or Nencini courts, or the Chieffi CSC panel, could lead one to believe that those judges were indeed parties to the fabrication.
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, 11:07 PM   #180
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,934
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
.The judges went along with the prosecution, either for the reasons that LondonJohn suggests, or (perhaps less likely?) they were parties in support of the fabrication. Reading the motivation reports of the Massei or Nencini courts, or the Chieffi CSC panel, could lead one to believe that those judges were indeed parties to the fabrication.
I don't agree. Reading about this in the 2010 Massei motivations report reveals the most awkward and ludicrous justification for not testing the presumed semen stain, so awkward and contrived that it's difficult to believe he did it on purpose.
__________________
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, 12:12 AM   #181
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,083
One of the depressing things is that what happened in Sollecito's and Knox's case is very similar to what has happened in many wrongful convictions. Tunnel vision by the investigator, they pick on an easy target and ignore evidence pointing to someone else. Confessions are given undue weight often obtained without legal representation. The lack of forensic evidence of interaction between accused and victim is given insufficient weight as exculpatory. Dubious forensic science is used. You could map what happened to Knox onto others such as the Central Park five.

What I find sad is that there are clearly lessons to be learned. Some of these have been learnt in England and Wales (Scotland has significant issues), interview techniques, recording of interviews, forensic science regulation are all attempts to address some of these issues.
Planigale 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:35 AM   #182
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
One of the depressing things is that what happened in Sollecito's and Knox's case is very similar to what has happened in many wrongful convictions. Tunnel vision by the investigator, they pick on an easy target and ignore evidence pointing to someone else. Confessions are given undue weight often obtained without legal representation. The lack of forensic evidence of interaction between accused and victim is given insufficient weight as exculpatory. Dubious forensic science is used. You could map what happened to Knox onto others such as the Central Park five.

What I find sad is that there are clearly lessons to be learned. Some of these have been learnt in England and Wales (Scotland has significant issues), interview techniques, recording of interviews, forensic science regulation are all attempts to address some of these issues.
Forensic evidence? We don't need no stinkin' forensic evidence! We got body language and her eyes!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:53 AM   #183
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
I almost feel sorry for poor KrissyG over on TJMK. Her latest unhinged rant masquerading as an 'article' has received all of ONE comment....made by KrissyG.
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, 10:43 AM   #184
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I believe that the real reason the prosecution did not want the apparent semen stain tested was that they were confident that DNA profiling it would ID Guede. This evidence would contradict Guede's story and make it more difficult to successfully fabricate a case against Knox and Sollecito.
Well Numbers, hmmm! I know you're not entirely in agreement with my theory that the cops knew Rudy was the killer from day one, but your highlighted points seems to come pretty close to agreeing with me. These points indicate a need to maximise a case against K&S and minimise the case against Rudy, I agree with that, but what initiated these tactics if it wasn't a knowledge that Rudy was the killer on the first day? In other words when do you think it become imperative to the cops that Rudy had to be protected?

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:36 PM   #185
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
My word!! This still goes on? Vixen is still banging her drum out of sync and demanding the entire orchestra is out of sync not her.
It’s hopeless when someone ignorant of law posts as if he/SHE is knowledgeable. Clearly ignorance is bliss.
Let’s be clear about this. Lower courts find facts (“legal facts” as defined in law and which are not necessary correct or “empirical facts”. The appeal court is stuck with lower court “facts” whether they like them or not (with few exceptions).
What the appeal court does is to trace the logic of going from “fact” to finding. In the final appeal there was a finding of quantum leaps from “fact” to “finding” by the lower courts (Hellman excluded) which were unsound. To argue anything as being a fact because lower found it so, is to misunderstand law completely.
Mike1711 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, 01:13 PM   #186
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,934
From the NYTimes about the Modena innocence conference. One organizater remarked on the particularly venomous hatred aimed at both Knox, as well as anyone who defended them. For some reason, the Perugian murder in 2007 (!) and the subsequent media storm created an almost unprecedented hatred....
Quote:
"The three-day festival was organized by Italy’s Innocence Project and the Criminal Bar Association in Modena to discuss “complicated themes” on criminal justice, said Luca Lupária Donati, a law professor at Tre University in Rome and the founder and director of the Italian Innocence Project. Judges and prosecutors were invited to attend.

Mr. Lupária said in an interview in Rome that the issue of wrongful conviction and miscarriages of justice was especially important “in a moment of populism, where the theme of the death penalty was rearing its head in Europe,” where it does not exist.

“It can take 100 to 200 years to achieve some legal rights but a day to lose them,” he said.

Ms. Knox’s case was particularly divisive, stirring passionate debate on her innocence in Italy and the United States. Hordes of news cameras and journalists followed the case as it bounced from court to court. Benedetto Lattanzi and Valentino Maimone, the co-founders of Errorigiudiziari.com, an archive that tracks judicial errors in Italy, said that whenever they posted something about Ms. Knox, she was immediately attacked on social media by Italian haters.

“We’re still stunned that so many years later there’s still this hatred, this loathing,” Mr. Maimone said.
__________________
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 01:14 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:47 PM   #187
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Well Numbers, hmmm! I know you're not entirely in agreement with my theory that the cops knew Rudy was the killer from day one, but your highlighted points seems to come pretty close to agreeing with me. These points indicate a need to maximise a case against K&S and minimise the case against Rudy, I agree with that, but what initiated these tactics if it wasn't a knowledge that Rudy was the killer on the first day? In other words when do you think it become imperative to the cops that Rudy had to be protected?

Hoots
Tom, if you don't mind me adding my own $.02... I don't think it was so much protecting Guede as it was protecting the opportunity to bring Amanda and Raffaele to trial, and that became an imperative the moment they decided to stage a massive media event to proclaim themselves masters of the universe by solving the case so quickly using only behavioral study.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:48 PM   #188
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
My word!! This still goes on? Vixen is still banging her drum out of sync and demanding the entire orchestra is out of sync not her.
It’s hopeless when someone ignorant of law posts as if he/SHE is knowledgeable. Clearly ignorance is bliss.
Let’s be clear about this. Lower courts find facts (“legal facts” as defined in law and which are not necessary correct or “empirical facts”. The appeal court is stuck with lower court “facts” whether they like them or not (with few exceptions).
What the appeal court does is to trace the logic of going from “fact” to finding. In the final appeal there was a finding of quantum leaps from “fact” to “finding” by the lower courts (Hellman excluded) which were unsound. To argue anything as being a fact because lower found it so, is to misunderstand law completely.
Yes, but when that's your only option because you can't validate these "facts" using real evidence....
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:26 PM   #189
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,781
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I believe that the real reason the prosecution did not want the apparent semen stain tested was that they were confident that DNA profiling it would ID Guede. This evidence would contradict Guede's story and make it more difficult to successfully fabricate a case against Knox and Sollecito.

The judges went along with the prosecution, either for the reasons that LondonJohn suggests, or (perhaps less likely?) they were parties in support of the fabrication. Reading the motivation reports of the Massei or Nencini courts, or the Chieffi CSC panel, could lead one to believe that those judges were indeed parties to the fabrication.
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Well Numbers, hmmm! I know you're not entirely in agreement with my theory that the cops knew Rudy was the killer from day one, but your highlighted points seems to come pretty close to agreeing with me. These points indicate a need to maximise a case against K&S and minimise the case against Rudy, I agree with that, but what initiated these tactics if it wasn't a knowledge that Rudy was the killer on the first day? In other words when do you think it become imperative to the cops that Rudy had to be protected?

Hoots
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Tom, if you don't mind me adding my own $.02... I don't think it was so much protecting Guede as it was protecting the opportunity to bring Amanda and Raffaele to trial, and that became an imperative the moment they decided to stage a massive media event to proclaim themselves masters of the universe by solving the case so quickly using only behavioral study.
What we have here is a very exciting discussion which, due to lack of sufficient evidence about what the police, including the scientific police, and the prosecution did, and when did they do or not do it, cannot be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why I am, as I stated earlier, agnostic about the proposition (which is not itself completely unreasonable, IMO) that the police knew from day 1 that Rudy Guede was Meredith's murder.

What I had meant in my earlier statement (the first quote above) was, I believe, in agreement with what TruthCalls is claiming. My view is that the police and prosecutor decided early on - by about day 2 or 3 - that they had "convenient suspects" in Amanda and Raffaele. I think that TomG means essentially the same when he calls them "soft targets" for the police and prosecutor.

When the police phone intercerpts revealed to them that Amanda's mom was coming to Italy November 6 in order to support her, they decided they had to move to force Raffaele to abandon Amanda's alibi, and if, possible, to incriminate both of them in the murder. While according to an arrest hearing magistrate this was because the police and prosecutor thought that they had to move quickly because Amanda's mom would be taking her back to the US, it is perhaps more likely they feared her mother's experience and influence would lead Amanda to get a lawyer, and this would ruin the plan for coercing her confession.

Did the police and/or prosecutor know as of Nov. 5/6 that Rudy Guede was the murderer? Were they trying to protect him at that time? That doesn't necessarily matter for their scheme. They needed results fast, and Amanda and Raffaele were available, naive, and had no lawyers. The police and prosecutor chose either: 1) not to spend time searching for some unknown male who had broken into the flat and who may have left a DNA profile, or 2) not to apprehend Guede, who they would have suspected because of the break-in MO, because he was under their protection and/or that of the wealthiest and most powerful family in Perugia.

Once it became absolutely clear that Lumumba could not be pulled into the fabrication, and that there was forensic and witness evidence (Guede's buddy who told the police about his Skype conversation with Guede) against Guede, the police and prosecutor did everything possible to minimize Guede's involvement and punishment and maximize their fabrication against Amanda and Raffaele.

We also should note that we have no documented evidence (as far as I know) that the police were aware of the semen stain on the pillow before the defense called it to attention. Whether they were aware of it or not, the prosecution was dead set against DNA profile testing it once it was known. And the courts supported this travesty of not testing a semen stain found on a pillow under a raped murder victim's body.

Last edited by Numbers; Today at 03:29 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:33 PM   #190
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
It's also possible, even probable IMO, that the police and Mignini really did jump to the (wrong) conclusion quickly that AK and RS were truly involved and that Guede wasn't even in their site before the forensics came back. Once he was identified, they just switched him for Lumumba. I think the police and prosecutor really believed they had identified the killers but as time went on and the case started to fall apart, it became more a matter of covering their asses and refusing to accept they had been wrong. The police/prosecutors in that matter are no different to people we see here and elsewhere who still hold on to their opinions of guilt.
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, 05:14 PM   #191
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,934
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It's also possible, even probable IMO, that the police and Mignini really did jump to the (wrong) conclusion quickly that AK and RS were truly involved and that Guede wasn't even in their site before the forensics came back. Once he was identified, they just switched him for Lumumba. I think the police and prosecutor really believed they had identified the killers but as time went on and the case started to fall apart, it became more a matter of covering their asses and refusing to accept they had been wrong. The police/prosecutors in that matter are no different to people we see here and elsewhere who still hold on to their opinions of guilt.
Agreed. I've found that when one cannot decide between sophisticated conspiracy vs. good old fashioned human fallibility, the latter tends to be true far far more often than not.

In theory, no one should be more familiar with the body of evidence than a prosecutor. Mignini used all sorts of questionable items, and brought weird motives to the table, and dropped most of them. He also wilfully stopped proper forensic collection - body temperature and presumed semen stain come to mind.

And we've already seen one Chamber of Cassazione as well as one Oxford trained Italian lawyer claim that a presumed sheer width and amount of evidentiary items outweighs the fact that each item has no depth.

Add in confirmation bias (which we all suffer from), and there you have it.
__________________
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 05:47 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:19 PM   #192
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,496
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Agreed. I've found that when one cannot decide between sophisticated conspiracy vs. good old fashioned human fallibility, the latter tends to be true far far more often than not.
Agreed. The most simple and obvious explanation is usually the right one. Not always, but usually.
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, 06:01 PM   #193
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,781
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Agreed. I've found that when one cannot decide between sophisticated conspiracy vs. good old fashioned human fallibility, the latter tends to be true far far more often than not.

In theory, no one should be more familiar with the body of evidence than a prosecutor. Mignini used all sorts of questionable items, and brought weird motives to the table, and dropped most of them.

And we've already seen one Chamber of Cassazione as well as one Oxford trained Italian lawyer claim that a presumed sheer width and amount of evidentiary items outweighs the fact that each item has no depth.

Add in confirmation bias (which we all suffer from), and there you have it.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Agreed. The most simple and obvious explanation is usually the right one. Not always, but usually.
I can't definitively prove that those claiming that the police and prosecutor were "sincere" in their actions against innocents Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick are not correct. But it's also impossible for those claiming that the police and prosecutor were sincere, even in the beginning, to definitively prove their claim.

If the police and prosecutor were sincere, why did they violate Italian procedural laws right from the beginning of the Nov. 5/6 interrogations?

Why did the police and prosecutor not release Patrick Lumumba from detention as soon as it became clear, on or about Nov. 8, that his DNA profile did not match the DNA profile found inside Meredith and on her clothes?

And why is there a belief that "human fallibility" such as confirmation bias or similar fault that "everyone suffers from*" is a simpler and more obvious explanation than "human fallibility" such as dishonesty or a desire to close a case quickly and escape the glare of negative publicity for your city or police force?

In the US, 70% (695/986) of exonerations in homicide cases resulted from known wrongful convictions in which official misconduct was a factor; perjury or false accusation also was a factor in 70% (686/986).** I suggest that Italy may also suffer from cases of official misconduct. I remind readers here that Mignini had been accused and tried for abuse of power (official misconduct) in the extended Monster of Florence case prior to Amanda Knox landing on Italian soil.

*How do we know this?

**Source: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages
/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx

More than one factor may account for a single wrongful conviction, so the percentages do not add to 100%.

Last edited by Numbers; Today at 07:28 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 09:34 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.