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 Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 7th November 2021, 04:25 AM   #1681
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I went to school with Cherry Pye. After we stopped being dicks about it, it eventually seemed natural.


At the beginning of this wrongful prosecution, that's all there was. That's why Rudy Guede, who actually sexually molested the victim, fell out of the narrative. It became just too much fun to slut shame one of the accused - it sold more papers and caused more clicks than actual facts.

Not until Italy complies with the ECHR directive, and not until the slut shaming stops.

On that last point, that means this thread may never end.
Guede did the crime and he did the time.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2021, 04:26 AM   #1682
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Really? THE FREAKING SUN? Is this what you've fallen to? Nobody else ran this story except for couple other low lifes that just cut and pasted the exact same thing. Knox was doing research for a story but you've managed to turn it into "slut" story. Honestly, Vix, stop digging the hole of self-embarrassment.
Let's face it: the person who made this a press release is Knox herself.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2021, 06:46 AM   #1683
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post

And will this thread ever end?
I've been told in no uncertain terms in the past to keep the Kerchers out of it; however I still think that they hold the key to effectively muzzling the ongoing irreconcilable debate.

Amanda was interviewed by the BBC recently. During the interview a statement was read from Stephanie Kercher on behalf of the remaining Kercher family that "she wondered why you [Amanda] were still choosing to relive this nightmare." To which Amanda responded "I don't think the truth has ever really been acknowledged"

This demonstrates that the Kercher family are still choosing to have some input into how Amanda lives her life when they could have said nothing. So they are not exactly keeping themselves out of it.

I think that if the Kerchers made a statement that they are willing to accept the conclusions of the M/B report and that they see no purpose in any continuing debate on behalf of Meredith it would go a long way to disarming both sides. By doing so before now they could have pre-empted their question to Amanda, since she would have no particular need to constantly assert her innocence at every opportunity.

M/B is not exactly the truth but it's the last word on the case, period. A statement from the Kerchers to accept the conclusion of M/B even if it's only a token gesture might go a long way to closure for everyone.

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 7th November 2021, 07:03 AM   #1684
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not at all. I am totally objective. I have read the court documents and there is nothing at all that indicates Knox and Sollecito are innocent but au contraire were overwhelmingly rightfully convicted by the merits trial which was indisputably extremely fair.

They only got off because of Clinton and Trump sticking their ridiculous patriotic oar in.

Yeah..... uhmmmm..... your second paragraph perfectly contradicts your first paragraph.
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 7th November 2021, 07:13 AM   #1685
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is a forum, which means people express their opinions and discuss them. If you want an echo chamber or a mindless fan club you are in the wrong place.

In the meantime, I shall continue to express my opinion.

Oh, please feel free to carry on.

And yes, this indeed is a forum where people express their opinions and discuss them*. Some of those people use a decent knowledge/understanding of criminal justice and science (including the scientific method) to carry out a cogent analysis of the evidence - and the lack of evidence. Whereas some other of those people demonstrate fundamental ignorance of criminal justice and science (including the scientific method), and marry that up with vindictive character analysis, circular reasoning, confirmation bias and shockingly bad critical thinking. The former group are right. The latter group are wrong.


* And it's a forum where people are not arbitrarily banned for no other reason than that they hold a different point of view from the forum's owner(s)/administrator(s). Unlike every single pro-guilt forum. That would give rational people pause for thought.
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 7th November 2021, 07:17 AM   #1686
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nothing to do with Piers Morgan. I am capable of formulating my own views. Only an intellectual midget would borrow their opinions from someone else.

Colour you thickly.


<sfx knocking on two broad planks>

You obviously don't know what "A is on the same page as B" means. It doesn't mean that A is somehow being told what to think by B. What it actually means is nothing more than "A and B hold the same views on this subject".

What was that you were saying about planks and thick things, Vixen? Projection much.....?
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 7th November 2021, 07:36 AM   #1687
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
As I continue to watch the video, I begin to suspect that Mignini might be on to something. The fact that Hellmann and Marasca weren't the usual judges for these cases probably probably has a lot to do with their acquittals. Mignini obviously expected to be able to act with impunity. The good old boys of the criminal court gang were supposed to side with their buddies in the prosecution as always. So when Hellmann-Zannetti has the audacity to proclaim themselves free of bias, Mignini et al are upset, because they're supposed to be biased towards them, dammit! The speaker following Mignini, prof Sagnotti drones on and on about how the phrase used (a quote by Cicero, apparently) is a coded reference for bias towards the defense and a panel of judges that have already made up their minds.

But here's the thing: Mignini et al want judges who have already made up their minds. After talking about how wonderful Galati and Costaglioli's (but mostly Mignini's) appeal to the Supreme Court was, and that Chieffi had no choice but to bow before such a powerful piece of writing, prof. Sagnotti says that Marasca-Bruno was not judging the Nencini verdict, but the Chieffi verdict - since Nencini was following Chieffi's instructions to find them guilty!

A lot of spittle is sprayed over the quashing of Nencini and how that means that there is no judgment on the evidence left (with Hellmann and Nencini both gone). Sure, ok, but that is a power of the Supreme Court. They can annul an appeal verdict, and not order a new trial. Mignini et al may not like it, but there's nothing that says that they can't. And for all the talk about judging evidence vs judging application of law, I've never seen a convincing argument that Marasca-Bruno did anything different than Chieffi did.

Also, Sagnotti is hilarious, calling M-B monstrous and saying that lawmakers did not even think a Supreme Court justice would do such a thing, so they didn't legislate any penalties for it (sure, Jan, that's why there's no uproar about this case outside your limited circles).

Then she goes on about how Quintavalle's testimony was discarded because he had seen Amanda in his store the morning after the murder in a grey coat, and Amanda didn't own a grey coat. This is bad because Amanda was wearing Raffaele's grey coat when filmed outside the cottage, while the police were inside. Of course, that's not the sole or even main reason Quintavalle was tossed. The fact that he gave his story a year after his initial and completely different story was, not to mention being contradicted by his shop assistant, who never changed her story, and CCTV footage that showed Quintavalle didn't arrive at the store until after it opened.

Then we have the scream witnesses (who, as she claims, put the time of murder at an unfavorable time for the defendants), where the issue appears to be Hellmann (rightly) pointing out that the scream didn't have to be Meredith's and that there are drug users and dealers who frequent that area who could have screamed. She gets quite indignant over this slandering of an area of Perugia, and sarcastically wonders why the police doesn't deal with this area if it is so infested with druggies. She then brings up Curatolo, the drug addict and dealer who was a regular of the area, and was left alone by the police.

Here she says Hellmann wrote that "it's common knowledge that tramps aren't much reliable, therefore the homeless man is lying". Well, I've read Hellmann, and I don't think the homeless man is the only one lying here, prof. Sagnotti.

You know, I kind of pity Sagnotti's law students. First she shows a video of Filomena's window, showing glass shards on the outer sill, which is a sign of staging, because the glass should be inside. Yes, and if the camera had panned downwards, we'd have seen that, wouldn't we, prof. Sagnotti? Also, do you find it curious that there are few to no shards sticking up from the bottom of the windowframe? The ones most unlikely to have fallen out? Almost as if someone had taken out those shards for easier access to the latch, and placed them neatly on the windowsill.

Then it's Raffaele's "chilling" conversations with the Carabinieri, where he says Filomena's room was a mess but nothing was stolen. How did he know that??? He has to be the one who messed up the room. "This is the only logical explanation. Look, this is what I teach in classes, now I'm stating a conclusion, but I'd ask my students what they think, ask them to interpret evidence - I asked them in these days too, they are able to get to the right conclusion on their own." Oh, I don't doubt they know what you want them to say. Christ.

Then there's the bombshell - the last call from one of Meredith's cell phones was 911. Who would do that? Only an American. No one took notice of this over all five trials!

Yeah, because you're lying, prof. Sagnotti. I've read half a dozen phone logs and no such call exists. Mignini makes no comment, of course.
FergusMcDuck 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 7th November 2021, 09:21 AM   #1688
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,707
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
As I continue to watch the video, I begin to suspect that Mignini might be on to something. The fact that Hellmann and Marasca weren't the usual judges for these cases probably probably has a lot to do with their acquittals. Mignini obviously expected to be able to act with impunity. The good old boys of the criminal court gang were supposed to side with their buddies in the prosecution as always. So when Hellmann-Zannetti has the audacity to proclaim themselves free of bias, Mignini et al are upset, because they're supposed to be biased towards them, dammit! The speaker following Mignini, prof Sagnotti drones on and on about how the phrase used (a quote by Cicero, apparently) is a coded reference for bias towards the defense and a panel of judges that have already made up their minds.

But here's the thing: Mignini et al want judges who have already made up their minds. After talking about how wonderful Galati and Costaglioli's (but mostly Mignini's) appeal to the Supreme Court was, and that Chieffi had no choice but to bow before such a powerful piece of writing, prof. Sagnotti says that Marasca-Bruno was not judging the Nencini verdict, but the Chieffi verdict - since Nencini was following Chieffi's instructions to find them guilty!

A lot of spittle is sprayed over the quashing of Nencini and how that means that there is no judgment on the evidence left (with Hellmann and Nencini both gone). Sure, ok, but that is a power of the Supreme Court. They can annul an appeal verdict, and not order a new trial. Mignini et al may not like it, but there's nothing that says that they can't. And for all the talk about judging evidence vs judging application of law, I've never seen a convincing argument that Marasca-Bruno did anything different than Chieffi did.

Also, Sagnotti is hilarious, calling M-B monstrous and saying that lawmakers did not even think a Supreme Court justice would do such a thing, so they didn't legislate any penalties for it (sure, Jan, that's why there's no uproar about this case outside your limited circles).

Then she goes on about how Quintavalle's testimony was discarded because he had seen Amanda in his store the morning after the murder in a grey coat, and Amanda didn't own a grey coat. This is bad because Amanda was wearing Raffaele's grey coat when filmed outside the cottage, while the police were inside. Of course, that's not the sole or even main reason Quintavalle was tossed. The fact that he gave his story a year after his initial and completely different story was, not to mention being contradicted by his shop assistant, who never changed her story, and CCTV footage that showed Quintavalle didn't arrive at the store until after it opened.

Then we have the scream witnesses (who, as she claims, put the time of murder at an unfavorable time for the defendants), where the issue appears to be Hellmann (rightly) pointing out that the scream didn't have to be Meredith's and that there are drug users and dealers who frequent that area who could have screamed. She gets quite indignant over this slandering of an area of Perugia, and sarcastically wonders why the police doesn't deal with this area if it is so infested with druggies. She then brings up Curatolo, the drug addict and dealer who was a regular of the area, and was left alone by the police.

Here she says Hellmann wrote that "it's common knowledge that tramps aren't much reliable, therefore the homeless man is lying". Well, I've read Hellmann, and I don't think the homeless man is the only one lying here, prof. Sagnotti.

You know, I kind of pity Sagnotti's law students. First she shows a video of Filomena's window, showing glass shards on the outer sill, which is a sign of staging, because the glass should be inside. Yes, and if the camera had panned downwards, we'd have seen that, wouldn't we, prof. Sagnotti? Also, do you find it curious that there are few to no shards sticking up from the bottom of the windowframe? The ones most unlikely to have fallen out? Almost as if someone had taken out those shards for easier access to the latch, and placed them neatly on the windowsill.

Then it's Raffaele's "chilling" conversations with the Carabinieri, where he says Filomena's room was a mess but nothing was stolen. How did he know that??? He has to be the one who messed up the room. "This is the only logical explanation. Look, this is what I teach in classes, now I'm stating a conclusion, but I'd ask my students what they think, ask them to interpret evidence - I asked them in these days too, they are able to get to the right conclusion on their own." Oh, I don't doubt they know what you want them to say. Christ.

Then there's the bombshell - the last call from one of Meredith's cell phones was 911. Who would do that? Only an American. No one took notice of this over all five trials!

Yeah, because you're lying, prof. Sagnotti. I've read half a dozen phone logs and no such call exists. Mignini makes no comment, of course.
I've only taken time to see some small sections of this 2 hr long YouTube video.

It's interesting to observe how the leaders of the hoax - apparently now including Sagnotti - create disinformation that later can be regurgitated by the followers of the hoax.
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 7th November 2021, 09:32 AM   #1689
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 414
Is there a link to the video?

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 7th November 2021, 09:58 AM   #1690
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have nothing against people calling their kids whatever they want.
<................sinister deletia...............>
However, if the sole aim is to shock - and Knox does seem to enjoy doing shocking things - then someone needs to protect that child's interests and right to be their own person, not a flag carrier for campaigning parents with an axe to grind.
This has to stop. I seriously hope that one day, years from now, you reread these kind of posts and experience both shame and embarrassment.
__________________
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 7th November 2021, 10:05 AM   #1691
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not at all. I am totally objective. I have read the court documents and there is nothing at all that indicates Knox and Sollecito are innocent but au contraire were overwhelmingly rightfully convicted by the merits trial which was indisputably extremely fair.

They only got off because of Clinton and Trump sticking their ridiculous patriotic oar in.
Right. Totally objective. Apparently that means being able to flood the forum with something other than "opinions", because your claim about Trump and Clinton above is not an opinion, it is an unsupported allegation.

However, we're finally getting somewhere.

The only person in Italy who believes as you do about the "court documents" demonstrating the pairs' guilt, is Mignini. He keeps producing videos bleating that he'd unfairly lost. Machiavelli - so far that I know - is the one providing the translation and upload.

Fair enough. Mignini believes he lost unfairly. Like Trump, calling the Goergia Secretary of State, asking the guy to find more Trump votes.

Some people can't stand to lose. So much so that they resort to unproven allegation of conspiracy.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 7th November 2021 at 10:06 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 7th November 2021, 10:08 AM   #1692
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Is there a link to the video?

Hoots
Sorry, that's my fault. Vixen posted it on the last page, but I'm still not allowed to post urls so I removed it from my reply.
FergusMcDuck 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 7th November 2021, 10:10 AM   #1693
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
As I continue to watch the video, .....
What FergusMcDuck said. (I'm not just supporting him/her because of the cool name! Although almost.)

Someone asked, "Is this thread STILL going?" YouTube videos like Mignini's are perhaps one reason why.

This is actually a forum to show how the conspiracy claimed doesn't work. It's not based on evidence. It's based on citationless, evidenceless assertions, like a 911 call being on Meredith's phone. The conspiracies alleged by Mignini et al. are simply baseless.

My bet is that that 911 factoid now becomes part of Vixen's corpus. Any takers?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 7th November 2021 at 10:11 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 7th November 2021, 10:41 AM   #1694
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
Sorry, that's my fault. Vixen posted it on the last page, but I'm still not allowed to post urls so I removed it from my reply.
That's ok I've got it now. We should leave Machiavelli some comments to let him know we're around.

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 7th November 2021, 12:36 PM   #1695
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
So now we turn to prof. Torricelli (with the assorted technical difficulties), and her problem is that we place too much emphasis on DNA to the detriment of "all the other evidence", a phrase that we've all heard but seldom seen defined. So when Hellmann threw out the DNA evidence, he should still have acknowledged "all the other evidence", specifically the issues prof. Sagnotti had raised - which, we should remember, include lying about why witnesses were excluded, misunderstanding glass evidence, making up a 911 call and contrasting Meredith's mother, who asked sainted Mignini to be allowed to kiss her daughter, with foul Amanda who was whining about selfish matters like "being imprisoned" and "being accused of murder" - you know, trivial, self-centered stuff.

You know, one of the saddest things I've read in this case is actually from Amanda's first memoriale. After talking about how the police screamed at her, threatened her, beat her and got her confused, she says that she understands that the police are under a lot of pressure.

"As I say we try to collect everything, whatever is possible to collect, from the first moment as we are on the crime scene"

Like bra clasps? Bloody sweaters? Yeah, you probably should.

"Another important thing, is the storage of samples"

You don't say?

Torricelli then complains that a piece of evidence was excluded due to improper collection, which made them ignore other bloodstains with "interesting" DNA. Yeah, we know Amanda's DNA was found in three blood drops in the bathroom, bloos from Meredith. How strange, to find a girl's DNA in her bathroom. I've said this to other people in other debates, but are there people who just never brush their teeth? Also, prof. Vecchiotti was "able to avoid" re-testing the bra clasp because the scientific police had stored it improperly and let it rot. Nice job using your own incompetence to make the actual expert sound sinister.

There's a lengthy bit about the "negative controls" that totally existed, but weren't given to defense or experts until the last days of the Appeal trial because "no one asked" (they did). Then there's the criticism they got for not testing the nature of the substance on the bra hook, rather than just the DNA (I mean, sure, but then maybe preserve your bra hook). Then there's a ton of technical stuff with the occasional piece of vitriol against Vecchiotti (strangely enough never Conti). Oh, and Torricelli's presentation is in comic sans.

Question time: "What are the most irrational things in the whole case?" Sagnotti: "The acquittal in the Appeal trial and the acquittal in the Supreme Court." Christ. She's going way into the political thing, Americans criticizing and "no one in the government at the time backing us". Because that's the thing isn't it? That was the whole purpose of Mignini's politization of the trial, and appeal to Italian national pride, wasn't it? To get the thin black line to surround them and protect them.

"Amanda only called one of Meredith's phones. Why didn't she call the other phone?" SHE DID! Jesus Christ, Sagnotti, we have access to the phone records! Try lying a bit less, please!

From Amanda's phone records:
02.11.2007 12:07:12 3484673590 Amanda Knox 447841131571 Meredith Kercher (E) 0 : 16 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.9
02.11.2007 12:08:44 3484673590 Amanda Knox 3471073006 Filomena Romanelli 1 : 08 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.3
02.11.2007 12:11:02 3484673590 Amanda Knox 3484673711 Meredith Kercher (I) 0 : 03 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.3
02.11.2007 12:11:54 3484673590 Amanda Knox 447841131571 Meredith Kercher (E) 0 : 04 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.3

"They are unable to kick down a door."

Why should they do that? They called the police!

"Amanda accuses Lumumba who she knows is innocent."

Begging the question. She only knows he's innocent if you assume she's guilty. If the police says they have evidence against him, is she supposed to assume they're lying?

"She writes a memoriale where she tells - even in a dreamlike fashion - the crime, describes how it happened exactly how five trial instances found it happened."

After six (6) paragraphs detailing the actual events of that night, this is Amanda describing "how it happened exactly how five trial instances found it happened":

"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw
him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my
head I could hear Meredith screaming."

That's it, that's the extent of it. That's not how five trial instances found it happened. It's not even how the prosecution claimed it happened after finding Rudy.

Now Mignini wants to add a bit on Curatolo, who said he saw Amanda and Raffaele on the 1st between 9:30 and 11:30, while he saw buses that only were there on the 31st. So the error Hellmann and Marasca made was that Amanda said she wasn't together with Raffaele until after that time on the 31st, so the only time Curatolo could have seen them was the 1st. Yeah, Mignini, but that is the whole problem. Your witness can't keep his days straight, yet we're supposed to believe him when he says he saw them. This is classic Mignini, by the way. His typical tunnel vision and insane leaps of logic.

And now it's "Hellmann says Lumumba and Meredith didn't know eachother, But Amanda says she introduced Meredith to Lumumba! Contradiction!" Ah yes, Mignini's binary thinking. If you've been introduced to someone once, you know them forever. What is this even supposed to prove? It almost seems like he's arguing against Amanda's calunnia conviction.

Surprise, Mignini doesn't understand the ECHR ruling. And for those hoping for an overturn of Marasca-Bruno, Mignini sadly says that's unlikely. He's also disappointed none of the Penal Policy scholars have spoken up about this. So, I'm not a legal scholar myself, but I think there might be a reason for that. Sagnotti says it's a violation of the constitution, maybe they can get at M-B that way? But Mignini laments that prosecutors are disrespected and unproctected in Italy, the poor buggers. He even sneaks in a Narducci mention there, which actually made me interested for the first time, but he doesn't follow up on it.

Sagnotti blames the kids today, who are not taught rhetoric or logic in schools any more. If they did, they'd all agree with Mignini et al, of course. Some more Mignini empty rhetoric and we're done.

What strikes me is how, six years later, they're still so miserable. Just so incredibly bitter about this case not going their way, stewing in the same arguments that have persuaded essentially none in the interim. They will probably whine about this for decades coming.
FergusMcDuck 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 7th November 2021, 12:37 PM   #1696
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Right. Totally objective. Apparently that means being able to flood the forum with something other than "opinions", because your claim about Trump and Clinton above is not an opinion, it is an unsupported allegation.

However, we're finally getting somewhere.

The only person in Italy who believes as you do about the "court documents" demonstrating the pairs' guilt, is Mignini. He keeps producing videos bleating that he'd unfairly lost. Machiavelli - so far that I know - is the one providing the translation and upload.

Fair enough. Mignini believes he lost unfairly. Like Trump, calling the Goergia Secretary of State, asking the guy to find more Trump votes.

Some people can't stand to lose. So much so that they resort to unproven allegation of conspiracy
.
The similarity to Trump is exactly what crossed my mind as I read Fergus McDuck's reports.

Amanda is constantly being called a narcissist but I think it's Mignini who displays narcissism much more than Amanda. His bragging about his Sherlock Holmesian abilities, how everyone was coming up to him in the streets of Perugia congratulating him on what a great job he was doing, and his inability he admit he got anything wrong...the final acquittal was everyone else's fault... is total narcissism.
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 7th November 2021, 12:37 PM   #1697
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let's face it: the person who made this a press release is Knox herself.
Really? And your evidence of this is what exactly?
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 7th November 2021, 12:53 PM   #1698
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have nothing against people calling their kids whatever they want. However, if a child is given an ostensibly silly name which gives it a high possibility of emotional distress, for example an anti-social couple in Sweden:

wiki

I did say if the parents genuinely think the name wonderful and given in good faith, fine. However, if the sole aim is to shock - and Knox does seem to enjoy doing shocking things - then someone needs to protect that child's interests and right to be their own person, not a flag carrier for campaigning parents with an axe to grind.
I don't particularly like the name she chose; I prefer more classic names. But it it, in fact, a girl's name.
Quote:
"Eureka appeared on the charts for the first time in 1969 on position #1940."

"Eureka peaked in popularity 48 years ago in 1973 on position 1661."

"Eureka is currently topping the baby name charts in Georgia at position #868"

"People with the name Eureka :Eureka O'Hara, Eureka Mo, Eureka Tumangday"
http://www.babynamescience.com/baby-name/Eureka-girl

Eureka is also the name of the main character in the "Teardrop" series by Lauren Kate.

Perhaps, Vix, you should contact Child Protection Services in Washington State and report them?
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 7th November 2021, 12:55 PM   #1699
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Guede did the crime and he did the time.
Eureka! You've finally said something 100% true!
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 7th November 2021, 01:10 PM   #1700
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not at all. I am totally objective. I have read the court documents and there is nothing at all that indicates Knox and Sollecito are innocent but au contraire were overwhelmingly rightfully convicted by the merits trial which was indisputably extremely fair.

Quote:
They only got off because of Clinton and Trump sticking their ridiculous patriotic oar in
.
I thought it was because of bent judges, bent experts, and the mafia.

I'm trying to figure out how you think a New York businessman had that kind of power. After all, Trump didn't (gag) become president until Jan. 2017, almost two years after the final acquittal. Did he threaten to close down his businesses in Italy? Oh, wait...he doesn't have any.

And what exactly did Clinton do? Oh, yes...she said she'd meet with anyone who had concerns about the case, including Sen. Cantwell back in 2009. How are she!

Honestly, Vix. Get a grip.
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 7th November 2021, 03:46 PM   #1701
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
As I continue to watch the video, I begin to suspect that Mignini might be on to something. The fact that Hellmann and Marasca weren't the usual judges for these cases probably probably has a lot to do with their acquittals. Mignini obviously expected to be able to act with impunity. The good old boys of the criminal court gang were supposed to side with their buddies in the prosecution as always. So when Hellmann-Zannetti has the audacity to proclaim themselves free of bias, Mignini et al are upset, because they're supposed to be biased towards them, dammit! The speaker following Mignini, prof Sagnotti drones on and on about how the phrase used (a quote by Cicero, apparently) is a coded reference for bias towards the defense and a panel of judges that have already made up their minds.

But here's the thing: Mignini et al want judges who have already made up their minds. After talking about how wonderful Galati and Costaglioli's (but mostly Mignini's) appeal to the Supreme Court was, and that Chieffi had no choice but to bow before such a powerful piece of writing, prof. Sagnotti says that Marasca-Bruno was not judging the Nencini verdict, but the Chieffi verdict - since Nencini was following Chieffi's instructions to find them guilty!

A lot of spittle is sprayed over the quashing of Nencini and how that means that there is no judgment on the evidence left (with Hellmann and Nencini both gone). Sure, ok, but that is a power of the Supreme Court. They can annul an appeal verdict, and not order a new trial. Mignini et al may not like it, but there's nothing that says that they can't. And for all the talk about judging evidence vs judging application of law, I've never seen a convincing argument that Marasca-Bruno did anything different than Chieffi did.

Also, Sagnotti is hilarious, calling M-B monstrous and saying that lawmakers did not even think a Supreme Court justice would do such a thing, so they didn't legislate any penalties for it (sure, Jan, that's why there's no uproar about this case outside your limited circles).

Then she goes on about how Quintavalle's testimony was discarded because he had seen Amanda in his store the morning after the murder in a grey coat, and Amanda didn't own a grey coat. This is bad because Amanda was wearing Raffaele's grey coat when filmed outside the cottage, while the police were inside. Of course, that's not the sole or even main reason Quintavalle was tossed. The fact that he gave his story a year after his initial and completely different story was, not to mention being contradicted by his shop assistant, who never changed her story, and CCTV footage that showed Quintavalle didn't arrive at the store until after it opened.

Then we have the scream witnesses (who, as she claims, put the time of murder at an unfavorable time for the defendants), where the issue appears to be Hellmann (rightly) pointing out that the scream didn't have to be Meredith's and that there are drug users and dealers who frequent that area who could have screamed. She gets quite indignant over this slandering of an area of Perugia, and sarcastically wonders why the police doesn't deal with this area if it is so infested with druggies. She then brings up Curatolo, the drug addict and dealer who was a regular of the area, and was left alone by the police.

Here she says Hellmann wrote that "it's common knowledge that tramps aren't much reliable, therefore the homeless man is lying". Well, I've read Hellmann, and I don't think the homeless man is the only one lying here, prof. Sagnotti.

You know, I kind of pity Sagnotti's law students. First she shows a video of Filomena's window, showing glass shards on the outer sill, which is a sign of staging, because the glass should be inside. Yes, and if the camera had panned downwards, we'd have seen that, wouldn't we, prof. Sagnotti? Also, do you find it curious that there are few to no shards sticking up from the bottom of the windowframe? The ones most unlikely to have fallen out? Almost as if someone had taken out those shards for easier access to the latch, and placed them neatly on the windowsill.

Then it's Raffaele's "chilling" conversations with the Carabinieri, where he says Filomena's room was a mess but nothing was stolen. How did he know that??? He has to be the one who messed up the room. "This is the only logical explanation. Look, this is what I teach in classes, now I'm stating a conclusion, but I'd ask my students what they think, ask them to interpret evidence - I asked them in these days too, they are able to get to the right conclusion on their own." Oh, I don't doubt they know what you want them to say. Christ.

Then there's the bombshell - the last call from one of Meredith's cell phones was 911. Who would do that? Only an American. No one took notice of this over all five trials!

Yeah, because you're lying, prof. Sagnotti. I've read half a dozen phone logs and no such call exists. Mignini makes no comment, of course.
Perhaps Sagnotti was referring to the '901' calls...?

Interestingly, Knox rang the USA about fifteen minutes before the door was even kicked down.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg mk phone log engl..jpg (35.9 KB, 10 views)
File Type: jpg knox rang USA.jpg (28.1 KB, 5 views)
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2021, 04:19 PM   #1702
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
deleted

Last edited by Stacyhs; 7th November 2021 at 04:22 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2021, 04:23 PM   #1703
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Perhaps Sagnotti was referring to the '901' calls...?

Interestingly, Knox rang the USA about fifteen minutes before the door was even kicked down.
I now must remind myself that every time a guilter presents a factoid with no citation or proof, that they're simply passing on Mignini's own post-2015 acquittal factoids, Those things he spews because he can't stand that he lost.

Like a lot of losers, one tack he takes is that he didn't really lose - he'll take sentences out of context from the final report, and say, "See, they in essence agree with me!" He's immune to the fact that the Marasca-Bruno report said that they should have been acquitted by the lower court, because "they did not commit the act".

Machiavelli has done us a HUGE favour in posting that YouTube video, the one where someone claims that one of Meredith's phones had had a 911 call made from it. Despite the fact that no court, no prosecutor, and no police officer ever said that her phone had.

Vixen, right on cue, tries to bail out Sagnotti. Instead of calling out an obvious, citationless lie - Vixen tries to cover for the conspiracy theorist.

But my bad, I always think it's stuff that Vixen or some other such guilter has made up all by their onesy. Turns out, all those factoid have as their origin Mignini, still smarting from not being able to convince all the courts that someone could be convicted - should be convicted - in the absence of evidence, just on Mignini's word for it.
__________________
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 7th November 2021, 04:30 PM   #1704
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Perhaps Sagnotti was referring to the '901' calls...?
Then Sagnotti is an idiot.

Quote:
Interestingly, Knox rang the USA about fifteen minutes before the door was even kicked down.
Why is it "interesting"?
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 7th November 2021, 04:40 PM   #1705
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Perhaps Sagnotti was referring to the '901' calls...?

Pahahaha! So you're suggesting that Sagnotti might have been such a low-intellect low-information "analyst" that a) she got the number wrong, then b) in her wrongness, she decided to place a malevolent inference to her mistake along the lines of "And who other than an American would think of calling 911? NOBODY! AHAAAAA! It must therefore have been Amanda Knox making those calls!!!"

In other words, you're suggesting that Sagnotti is an utter idiot. I'm inclined to agree.



Quote:
Interestingly, Knox rang the USA about fifteen minutes before the door was even kicked down.

Pray enlighten us as to why this is "interesting". Especially since Knox freely admitted to having called her mother in precisely this time period, because she and Sollecito were starting to get worried about a) Kercher not answering either of her mobile phones, b) Kercher's bedroom door being locked, and c) there having been other disturbing things at the cottage (Romanelli's broken window, the strange faeces in the toilet, the front door being open, etc).
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 7th November 2021, 04:50 PM   #1706
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Pahahaha! So you're suggesting that Sagnotti might have been such a low-intellect low-information "analyst" that a) she got the number wrong, then b) in her wrongness, she decided to place a malevolent inference to her mistake along the lines of "And who other than an American would think of calling 911? NOBODY! AHAAAAA! It must therefore have been Amanda Knox making those calls!!!"

In other words, you're suggesting that Sagnotti is an utter idiot. I'm inclined to agree.






Pray enlighten us as to why this is "interesting". Especially since Knox freely admitted to having called her mother in precisely this time period, because she and Sollecito were starting to get worried about a) Kercher not answering either of her mobile phones, b) Kercher's bedroom door being locked, and c) there having been other disturbing things at the cottage (Romanelli's broken window, the strange faeces in the toilet, the front door being open, etc).
But, LJ, calling one's mother under such circumstances would only be done by a narcissistic psychopath who had butchered her roommate because she was "fill in the blank with whatever unsupported motive you can come up with." Why not? The courts did.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2021, 10:25 PM   #1707
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Perhaps Sagnotti was referring to the '901' calls...?

Interestingly, Knox rang the USA about fifteen minutes before the door was even kicked down.
That would be remarkable, as you can see in the logs that "901" is the voicemail, which would be known to any UK citizen. It was called 21:58 (and immediately closed), just before the 22:00 aborted call to Abbey, the first number in Meredith's address book, two short calls that would likely have required only one or two button presses each. Perhaps like someone unused to English phones trying to turn it off. But yeah, that's probably it, which shows the caliber of intelligence and honesty among Mignini's friends. I wonder if this professor ever thinks of those she spews half-baked, ill-conceived lies about in public fora as real people. Again, I pity her students.

And yes, Knox called her mother. Not sure why it's interesting.

Last edited by FergusMcDuck; 7th November 2021 at 10:45 PM.
FergusMcDuck 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 7th November 2021, 11:41 PM   #1708
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
That would be remarkable, as you can see in the logs that "901" is the voicemail, which would be known to any UK citizen. It was called 21:58 (and immediately closed), just before the 22:00 aborted call to Abbey, the first number in Meredith's address book, two short calls that would likely have required only one or two button presses each. Perhaps like someone unused to English phones trying to turn it off. But yeah, that's probably it, which shows the caliber of intelligence and honesty among Mignini's friends. I wonder if this professor ever thinks of those she spews half-baked, ill-conceived lies about in public fora as real people. Again, I pity her students.

And yes, Knox called her mother. Not sure why it's interesting.
Bwwaahaaahaaaaahaaaa!
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 8th November 2021, 12:15 AM   #1709
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Perhaps Sagnotti was referring to the '901' calls...?

Interestingly, Knox rang the USA about fifteen minutes before the door was even kicked down.
C'mon Vixen, you're almost there. Just connect the dots, you can do it. In fact it was you implying that Sagnotti probably was referring to the '901' calls, when Sagnotti specifically pointed to phantom 911 calls, "which only an American would do".

You're almost there.... just a little closer, you can do it. You've just provided a citation suggesting that Sagnotti is either an idiot or a liar - as mentioned upthread, Mignini just sat there, probably embarrassed that Sagnotti was on his side.

No wonder Mignini lost. No wonder Mignini has to self-publish his own YouTube stuff.... there's no other legal entity in Italy who shares his opinions. They've all moved on.

They've read the 2015 ISC motivations report and said, "I guess AK and RS really were innocent all along. Boy, I hope Mignini accepts his humiliation and goes quietly. Wouldn't that be embarrassing if he self published a YouTube video, where he surrounds himself with conspiracists who don't know the difference between 901 and 911?"

Wouldn't it be embarrassing if Mignini went to a Satan and the Law Conference?



__________________
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 8th November 2021, 01:02 AM   #1710
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
The first hint of Mignini being a whackadoodle came with his opening pre-trial motive for the murder:

(The murder)...was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day.”
(Oct 18, 2008 pre-trial hearing Mignini to Judge Micheli)
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 8th November 2021, 01:55 AM   #1711
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,406
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
So now we turn to prof. Torricelli (with the assorted technical difficulties), and her problem is that we place too much emphasis on DNA to the detriment of "all the other evidence", a phrase that we've all heard but seldom seen defined. So when Hellmann threw out the DNA evidence, he should still have acknowledged "all the other evidence", specifically the issues prof. Sagnotti had raised - which, we should remember, include lying about why witnesses were excluded, misunderstanding glass evidence, making up a 911 call and contrasting Meredith's mother, who asked sainted Mignini to be allowed to kiss her daughter, with foul Amanda who was whining about selfish matters like "being imprisoned" and "being accused of murder" - you know, trivial, self-centered stuff.

You know, one of the saddest things I've read in this case is actually from Amanda's first memoriale. After talking about how the police screamed at her, threatened her, beat her and got her confused, she says that she understands that the police are under a lot of pressure.

"As I say we try to collect everything, whatever is possible to collect, from the first moment as we are on the crime scene"

Like bra clasps? Bloody sweaters? Yeah, you probably should.

"Another important thing, is the storage of samples"

You don't say?

Torricelli then complains that a piece of evidence was excluded due to improper collection, which made them ignore other bloodstains with "interesting" DNA. Yeah, we know Amanda's DNA was found in three blood drops in the bathroom, bloos from Meredith. How strange, to find a girl's DNA in her bathroom. I've said this to other people in other debates, but are there people who just never brush their teeth? Also, prof. Vecchiotti was "able to avoid" re-testing the bra clasp because the scientific police had stored it improperly and let it rot. Nice job using your own incompetence to make the actual expert sound sinister.

There's a lengthy bit about the "negative controls" that totally existed, but weren't given to defense or experts until the last days of the Appeal trial because "no one asked" (they did). Then there's the criticism they got for not testing the nature of the substance on the bra hook, rather than just the DNA (I mean, sure, but then maybe preserve your bra hook). Then there's a ton of technical stuff with the occasional piece of vitriol against Vecchiotti (strangely enough never Conti). Oh, and Torricelli's presentation is in comic sans.

Question time: "What are the most irrational things in the whole case?" Sagnotti: "The acquittal in the Appeal trial and the acquittal in the Supreme Court." Christ. She's going way into the political thing, Americans criticizing and "no one in the government at the time backing us". Because that's the thing isn't it? That was the whole purpose of Mignini's politization of the trial, and appeal to Italian national pride, wasn't it? To get the thin black line to surround them and protect them.

"Amanda only called one of Meredith's phones. Why didn't she call the other phone?" SHE DID! Jesus Christ, Sagnotti, we have access to the phone records! Try lying a bit less, please!

From Amanda's phone records:
02.11.2007 12:07:12 3484673590 Amanda Knox 447841131571 Meredith Kercher (E) 0 : 16 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.9
02.11.2007 12:08:44 3484673590 Amanda Knox 3471073006 Filomena Romanelli 1 : 08 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.3
02.11.2007 12:11:02 3484673590 Amanda Knox 3484673711 Meredith Kercher (I) 0 : 03 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.3
02.11.2007 12:11:54 3484673590 Amanda Knox 447841131571 Meredith Kercher (E) 0 : 04 outgoing call Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.3

"They are unable to kick down a door."

Why should they do that? They called the police!

"Amanda accuses Lumumba who she knows is innocent."

Begging the question. She only knows he's innocent if you assume she's guilty. If the police says they have evidence against him, is she supposed to assume they're lying?

"She writes a memoriale where she tells - even in a dreamlike fashion - the crime, describes how it happened exactly how five trial instances found it happened."

After six (6) paragraphs detailing the actual events of that night, this is Amanda describing "how it happened exactly how five trial instances found it happened":

"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw
him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my
head I could hear Meredith screaming."

That's it, that's the extent of it. That's not how five trial instances found it happened. It's not even how the prosecution claimed it happened after finding Rudy.

Now Mignini wants to add a bit on Curatolo, who said he saw Amanda and Raffaele on the 1st between 9:30 and 11:30 (ETA 21.30 - 23.30 local; CET) , while he saw buses that only were there on the 31st. So the error Hellmann and Marasca made was that Amanda said she wasn't together with Raffaele until after that time on the 31st, so the only time Curatolo could have seen them was the 1st. Yeah, Mignini, but that is the whole problem. Your witness can't keep his days straight, yet we're supposed to believe him when he says he saw them. This is classic Mignini, by the way. His typical tunnel vision and insane leaps of logic.

And now it's "Hellmann says Lumumba and Meredith didn't know eachother, But Amanda says she introduced Meredith to Lumumba! Contradiction!" Ah yes, Mignini's binary thinking. If you've been introduced to someone once, you know them forever. What is this even supposed to prove? It almost seems like he's arguing against Amanda's calunnia conviction.

Surprise, Mignini doesn't understand the ECHR ruling. And for those hoping for an overturn of Marasca-Bruno, Mignini sadly says that's unlikely. He's also disappointed none of the Penal Policy scholars have spoken up about this. So, I'm not a legal scholar myself, but I think there might be a reason for that. Sagnotti says it's a violation of the constitution, maybe they can get at M-B that way? But Mignini laments that prosecutors are disrespected and unproctected in Italy, the poor buggers. He even sneaks in a Narducci mention there, which actually made me interested for the first time, but he doesn't follow up on it.

Sagnotti blames the kids today, who are not taught rhetoric or logic in schools any more. If they did, they'd all agree with Mignini et al, of course. Some more Mignini empty rhetoric and we're done.

What strikes me is how, six years later, they're still so miserable. Just so incredibly bitter about this case not going their way, stewing in the same arguments that have persuaded essentially none in the interim. They will probably whine about this for decades coming.
For clarity I have used 24 hour clock since you did not specify AM or PM.
Planigale 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 8th November 2021, 03:23 AM   #1712
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
These yahoos remind me of Trump: they don't know how to lose without incessantly moaning and whinging that it was rigged. Maybe they need to start their own Fermare Il Furto! campaign.
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 8th November 2021, 03:50 AM   #1713
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I now must remind myself that every time a guilter presents a factoid with no citation or proof, that they're simply passing on Mignini's own post-2015 acquittal factoids, Those things he spews because he can't stand that he lost.

Like a lot of losers, one tack he takes is that he didn't really lose - he'll take sentences out of context from the final report, and say, "See, they in essence agree with me!" He's immune to the fact that the Marasca-Bruno report said that they should have been acquitted by the lower court, because "they did not commit the act".

Machiavelli has done us a HUGE favour in posting that YouTube video, the one where someone claims that one of Meredith's phones had had a 911 call made from it. Despite the fact that no court, no prosecutor, and no police officer ever said that her phone had.

Vixen, right on cue, tries to bail out Sagnotti. Instead of calling out an obvious, citationless lie - Vixen tries to cover for the conspiracy theorist.

But my bad, I always think it's stuff that Vixen or some other such guilter has made up all by their onesy. Turns out, all those factoid have as their origin Mignini, still smarting from not being able to convince all the courts that someone could be convicted - should be convicted - in the absence of evidence, just on Mignini's word for it.
Is it likely that a senior lecturer in Italian law is going to deliberately lie?

She may be mistaken in her belief that 'only an American' would think of faking a call to the police that closely resembles '911' when she is absolutely correct that a Brit or an Italian would not do that. Had Meredith been trying to contact police during the attack, she might have tried 999, although I feel sure that as a well-prepared type of person she possibly knew what the Italian emergency number was. The '901' is there. What it means is anyone's guess. And Sagnotti does say it is an opinion which nobody seems to have thought of.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 03:51 AM   #1714
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
These yahoos remind me of [name redacted ]: they don't know how to lose without incessantly moaning and whinging that it was rigged. Maybe they need to start their own Fermare Il Furto! campaign.

I get the distinct feeling that there are certain prosecutors and law enforcement officials in Italy - Mignini being a prime example - who simply aren't used to losing their cases.

And I suspect that an awful lot of that has to do with an improper hangover from the old inquisitorial system, wherein courts effectively started with the premise that the "impartial, scrupulous and diligent" prosecutor had already solved the crime and was bringing the miscreants to the court as a formality. Yes, of course the defence could/should have their say in court, but a) only if they could actively disprove the prosecutor's case would they be in any way effective, and b) they were, in any event, expected to be devious and dissembling in their attempts to "get their client off".

In respect of the botched and failed Knox/Sollecito trial process, Mignini et al wasted little time or effort in seizing on the easiest rationalisation that presented itself to them: that malevolent external forces (notably the US Government and powerful, money-no-object US public relations forces) had corrupted their "honourable" attempts to convict Knox and Sollecito.
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 8th November 2021, 03:53 AM   #1715
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Is it likely that a senior lecturer in Italian law is going to deliberately lie?

She may be mistaken in her belief that 'only an American' would think of faking a call to the police that closely resembles '911' when she is absolutely correct that a Brit or an Italian would not do that. Had Meredith been trying to contact police during the attack, she might have tried 999, although I feel sure that as a well-prepared type of person she possibly knew what the Italian emergency number was. The '901' is there. What it means is anyone's guess. And Sagnotti does say it is an opinion which nobody seems to have thought of.

No, Vixen. What she's being accused of is being ignorant, ill-informed, and an idiot. And she's convicted herself on all three counts.
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 8th November 2021, 03:54 AM   #1716
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Pahahaha! So you're suggesting that Sagnotti might have been such a low-intellect low-information "analyst" that a) she got the number wrong, then b) in her wrongness, she decided to place a malevolent inference to her mistake along the lines of "And who other than an American would think of calling 911? NOBODY! AHAAAAA! It must therefore have been Amanda Knox making those calls!!!"

In other words, you're suggesting that Sagnotti is an utter idiot. I'm inclined to agree.






Pray enlighten us as to why this is "interesting". Especially since Knox freely admitted to having called her mother in precisely this time period, because she and Sollecito were starting to get worried about a) Kercher not answering either of her mobile phones, b) Kercher's bedroom door being locked, and c) there having been other disturbing things at the cottage (Romanelli's broken window, the strange faeces in the toilet, the front door being open, etc).
If you look at Knox' phone logs she rang MK's english and Itlaian phones for a total of one second and six seconds at circa 10:10. If she was so desperately concerned about her 'friend' then you'd think she'd give her a chance to at least answer.

It all points to her knowing exactly what lay behind the 'locked' door and who put MK in that position, that she had to ring her Mom at 4:00 in the morning US time, when up until then all contact had been via the internet café.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg knox rang USA.jpg (28.1 KB, 1 views)
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 03:56 AM   #1717
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
That would be remarkable, as you can see in the logs that "901" is the voicemail, which would be known to any UK citizen. It was called 21:58 (and immediately closed), just before the 22:00 aborted call to Abbey, the first number in Meredith's address book, two short calls that would likely have required only one or two button presses each. Perhaps like someone unused to English phones trying to turn it off. But yeah, that's probably it, which shows the caliber of intelligence and honesty among Mignini's friends. I wonder if this professor ever thinks of those she spews half-baked, ill-conceived lies about in public fora as real people. Again, I pity her students.

And yes, Knox called her mother. Not sure why it's interesting.
'901' is not the UK voicemail code.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:01 AM   #1718
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If you look at Knox' phone logs she rang MK's english and Itlaian phones for a total of one second and six seconds at circa 10:10. If she was so desperately concerned about her 'friend' then you'd think she'd give her a chance to at least answer.

It all points to her knowing exactly what lay behind the 'locked' door and who put MK in that position, that she had to ring her Mom at 4:00 in the morning US time, when up until then all contact had been via the internet café.

You still don't understand that phone evidence, do you?

The timings given are the timings after the call connected.

Example: I call my friend's mobile. My friend's mobile is set up to divert to voicemail if it's not answered within 8 rings (which take, say, 20 seconds).

So I call my friend. It rings and rings. For 20 seconds. It then diverts to voicemail: "Hey, you've reached Beelzebub! Sorry I can't get to the phone...."

At that point I disconnect the call, because I wanted to speak with my friend Beelzebub rather than leave him a voicemail message.

But here's the thing, Vixen: that call would appear on the call records as a 6-second call (the time taken for my friend's voicemail message from the start of the message until I terminated the call). It wouldn't appear as a 20s + 6s = 26 second call.


So I wait a few minutes, and I try my mate again, because I really do want to speak with him. Again, it rings and rings for those 20 seconds. And then I hear it cut in with his voicemail message again. As soon as I hear his voicemail message start, I terminate the call again.

Guess what, Vixen? That second call would appear in the call logs as a 1-second call.


You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to a proper analysis of the phone records, Vixen.
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 8th November 2021, 04:03 AM   #1719
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I get the distinct feeling that there are certain prosecutors and law enforcement officials in Italy - Mignini being a prime example - who simply aren't used to losing their cases.

And I suspect that an awful lot of that has to do with an improper hangover from the old inquisitorial system, wherein courts effectively started with the premise that the "impartial, scrupulous and diligent" prosecutor had already solved the crime and was bringing the miscreants to the court as a formality. Yes, of course the defence could/should have their say in court, but a) only if they could actively disprove the prosecutor's case would they be in any way effective, and b) they were, in any event, expected to be devious and dissembling in their attempts to "get their client off".

In respect of the botched and failed Knox/Sollecito trial process, Mignini et al wasted little time or effort in seizing on the easiest rationalisation that presented itself to them: that malevolent external forces (notably the US Government and powerful, money-no-object US public relations forces) had corrupted their "honourable" attempts to convict Knox and Sollecito.
We use the Napoleonic Roman Law here (German version). It seems to be only the UK and former British colonies who use the adversarial system. I personally like the old Anglo-Saxon law on which the UK system is based but the Roman Law based 'gathering of information' and a panel of experts as the jurors seems to have worked all right throughout the centuries and even seems to be fairer, as the convicted have an automatic right to appeal, unlike in the UK, where of course you always have the right of appeal but it will almost certainly be 'sifted' out and denied 99% of the time. Juries by ones peers are a strong form of justice but also prone to man-in-the-street decision-making, which usually works out in favour of the defendant, so seems to work fine.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:03 AM   #1720
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
'901' is not the UK voicemail code.

Yes. Yes it was. (In 2007). It was the short code for retrieving messages from your mobile phone's voicemail box.

You don't know what you're talking about.
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
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 03:52 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.