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

Reply
Old 18th April 2017, 10:53 PM   #321
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,852
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
The PGP aren't angry that Amanda somehow managed to closely stage Rudy's unusual break-in style he had a criminal history of, thereby successfully lending at least some reasonable credibility to the break-in being genuine - aiding her defense.

The PGP aren't miffed that Amanda managed to clean the murder weapon of every trace of blood, and that the prosecution didn't even show interest in opening the knife up to see if a few hemoglobin molecules found their way into the seams.

The PGP don't care that the alleged semen stain next to a stripped naked murder victim was not analyzed.

The PGP aren't upset that Rudy was never pressed to testify against his alleged accomplices, despite the considerable leverage the prosecution could have used.

The PGP aren't mad at Quintavalle for being a bumbling fool that couldn't keep his story straight and couldn't seem to tell the police what he supposedly knew - weakening his testimony.

I consider the above a baseline that any PGP should adhere to, because it is a list of basic aspects of the factual realm of this case.

But this case isn't an A vs B discussion. Maybe it was in 2009, but it hasn't been in some time. This case is: what actually happened, which is a suspect was taken to trial on flaky evidence and unsurprisingly acquitted - and what some random people chose to believe based on nothing, which is that it was somehow an incontrovertible case with incontrovertible evidence.

If the was an A vs B type deal PGP arguing with the PIP conversations would look something like this "Yeah you're lucky this psycho girl got so lucky staging Rudy's break-in and the scene wasn't secured earlier...because otherwise the police would have been able to throughly document the staging and..."

But the conversations never go like that. They just use circular reasoning (it's staged because it's said to be staged) and then say she was acquitted because of the mafia. And then repeat themselves forever in a loop.

Like the PGP don't even have a position, they don't defend a position, they don't propose a position. They just have a starting axiom they decided to invent out of thin air, and for some reason we think that's worth engaging.

....
An alternative view: The case is about the abuses of Italian law and international law (the Convention and ECHR case-law) that enabled the Italian authorities to provisionally (wrongfully) convict Knox and Sollecito twice before their definitive and final acquittal for the murder/rape of Kercher, and to finally (wrongfully) convict Knox of calunnia against Lumumba.

For example, one insight is that the Italian judicial system has convicted Knox of calunnia against Lumumba because to do otherwise would acknowledge that the police violated Italian law during the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007. It is relevant that in a final, judged ECHR case (Cestaro, see below), the ECHR found that Italian law did not allow for adequate criminal penalties for police who mistreat (torture, degrade, or otherwise inhumanly treat) persons.

There are several "noteworthy pending cases" against Italy before the ECHR relating to police (and prison guard) misconduct, in addition to Knox v. Italy. These cases include:

For mistreatment by police: Azzolina and Others v. Italy and Kutschkau and Others v. Italy (nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10); Bartesaghi Gallo and Others v. Italy (no. 12131/13) and Albrecht and Others v. Italy (no. 43390/13); and for mistreatment by prison guards: Cirino v. Italy (no. 2539/13) and Renne v. Italy (no.4705/13).

An ECHR case that resulted in a judgment of a violation of Convention Article 3 against Italy (police mistreatment) is CESTARO v. ITALY 6884/11 07/04/2015. Excerpts (inline references omitted):

"190. In conclusion, having regard to all the facts set out above, the Court considers that the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during the police storming of the Diaz-Pertini School must be classified as “torture” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

242. In the present case the Court observes that the Italian authorities prosecuted those responsible for the impugned ill-treatment for several offences which are already defined in Italian criminal legislation.

However, in the framework of its analysis concerning the honouring of the procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court held that the authorities’ response was unsatisfactory .... Having discounted the possibility of negligence or complaisance on the part of the prosecution or the domestic trial courts, it found that the Italian criminal legislation applied in the instant case had “proved both inadequate in terms of the requirement to punish the acts of torture in issue and devoid of any deterrent effect capable of preventing similar future violations of Article 3” ....

.... in the absence of appropriate provision for all the types of ill-treatment prohibited by Article 3 under Italian criminal legislation, statute-barring ... and remission of sentence ... can, in practice, prevent the punishment not only of those responsible for acts of “torture” but also of the perpetrators of “inhuman” and “degrading” treatment pursuant to the same provision, despite all the efforts expended by the prosecuting authorities and the trial courts...."

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 10:57 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 18th April 2017, 11:24 PM   #322
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,852
For those who believe that results from a lab technician, such as "Doctor"* Stefanoni cannot or should not be questioned in court, when the partial results released by the lab tech appear suspect, there is this case of forensic lab misconduct from the US:

"Nearly 20,000 drug convictions dismissed over chemist's misconduct

Because of a lab chemist's widespread criminal misconduct in analyzing drug samples, about 95% of 20,000 drug convictions in Massachusetts have been dismissed....

Those drug convictions had relied on analysis from Annie Dookhan, a former chemist for the Department of Public Health. Dookhan worked testing drug samples submitted by law enforcement agencies from 2003 until 2012, when investigators accused her of contaminating drug samples, falsifying results, and mishandling evidence.

Investigators said she admitted to intentionally contaminating some samples to turn them from negative samples into positive samples. She also admitted to "dry labbing" in which she tested a few samples but reported the same results for multiple other samples.
Dookhan pleaded guilty in November 2013 to 27 criminal counts in all, including charges of perjury, evidence tampering and obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to 3 to 5 years in prison, and was released last year. ...."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/us/ann...an-drug-tests/

* In Italy, the title "doctor" is given to those who have completed an undergraduate (3 or 4 year) degree, equivalent to the (4 year) BS or BA degrees in the US.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 11:26 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 18th April 2017, 11:43 PM   #323
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,506
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
An alternative view: The case is about the abuses of Italian law and international law (the Convention and ECHR case-law) that enabled the Italian authorities to provisionally (wrongfully) convict Knox and Sollecito twice before their definitive and final acquittal for the murder/rape of Kercher, and to finally (wrongfully) convict Knox of calunnia against Lumumba.

For example, one insight is that the Italian judicial system has convicted Knox of calunnia against Lumumba because to do otherwise would acknowledge that the police violated Italian law during the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007. It is relevant that in a final, judged ECHR case (Cestaro, see below), the ECHR found that Italian law did not allow for adequate criminal penalties for police who mistreat (torture, degrade, or otherwise inhumanly treat) persons.

There are several "noteworthy pending cases" against Italy before the ECHR relating to police (and prison guard) misconduct, in addition to Knox v. Italy. These cases include:

For mistreatment by police: Azzolina and Others v. Italy and Kutschkau and Others v. Italy (nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10); Bartesaghi Gallo and Others v. Italy (no. 12131/13) and Albrecht and Others v. Italy (no. 43390/13); and for mistreatment by prison guards: Cirino v. Italy (no. 2539/13) and Renne v. Italy (no.4705/13).

An ECHR case that resulted in a judgment of a violation of Convention Article 3 against Italy (police mistreatment) is CESTARO v. ITALY 6884/11 07/04/2015. Excerpts (inline references omitted):

"190. In conclusion, having regard to all the facts set out above, the Court considers that the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during the police storming of the Diaz-Pertini School must be classified as “torture” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

242. In the present case the Court observes that the Italian authorities prosecuted those responsible for the impugned ill-treatment for several offences which are already defined in Italian criminal legislation.

However, in the framework of its analysis concerning the honouring of the procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court held that the authorities’ response was unsatisfactory .... Having discounted the possibility of negligence or complaisance on the part of the prosecution or the domestic trial courts, it found that the Italian criminal legislation applied in the instant case had “proved both inadequate in terms of the requirement to punish the acts of torture in issue and devoid of any deterrent effect capable of preventing similar future violations of Article 3” ....

.... in the absence of appropriate provision for all the types of ill-treatment prohibited by Article 3 under Italian criminal legislation, statute-barring ... and remission of sentence ... can, in practice, prevent the punishment not only of those responsible for acts of “torture” but also of the perpetrators of “inhuman” and “degrading” treatment pursuant to the same provision, despite all the efforts expended by the prosecuting authorities and the trial courts...."
I go back and forth on this. Komponisto (who used to post in these threads) said the Chieffi decision invalidated the Italian court's ability to function correctly - accurately processing incoming information and making appropriate decisions based on that information. That even if "something like the correct result" (M&B) eventually occurred, it was an arbitrary result and not an endorsement on the system self correcting.

I found his view to be very convincing and pretty much agreed with it. But on the other hand, reality is messy. It has edge cases. Perfect storms. The Italian system is messed up, but I just don't know enough to say it's any worse than like, for example, when we nearly sentenced David Camm to life for a crime committed by a known serial sex predator while Camm had multiple eyewitness alibis.

Amanda Knox was just caught up in an absolutely perfect storm. Bad luck her boss picked that night to cancel her shift (which would have alibied her), bad luck she decided to come home first before heading out on the country trip, bad luck the prosecutor assigned to that particular case was a conspiracy obsessed moron, bad luck or irresponsibility that she hadn't bothered to read the Passport she was eager to use (it says if you find yourself being questioned by the local police - seek help from the US consulate immediately), bad luck Rudy wasn't picked up earlier, etc.

In a perfect world the police find the killer and prosecute him before any more damage is done, but the world isn't perfect and sometimes you get these unfortunate outliers.

My interest in this story is why a weak case with bad evidence is taken so obsessively by some and how they have managed to convince themselves the evidence is more than what it clearly is.

Last edited by bagels; 19th April 2017 at 12:03 AM.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 03:14 AM   #324
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, lordy. Where's a face palm emoticon when I need one? When asked why Knox and Sollecito would leave incriminating evidence behind for the police to find you asked why would Loeb and Leopold leave bespoke glasses at the scene of their crime. The difference is that Knox and Sollecito KNEW the bathmat and blood were in the bathroom. They did not dispose of either, instead pointing them out to the police. Loeb and Leopold did NOT KNOW they had left Leopold's glasses behind. What is so hard to understand?
How do you know they knew?
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 03:48 AM   #325
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Be that as it may, the Courts of law say she did.
The highest court of law said this:

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

because the appellants did not commit the act.
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 03:52 AM   #326
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen,

1) Why didn't Knox or Sollecito remove the bath rug with "his" bloody footprint on it?

2) Why didn't they clean the sink with the blood on it, especially if Knox knew she had been bleeding?

Why did they leave these two pieces of evidence for the police after going to such super human efforts to remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's room?

We know they were aware of them because they pointed them out to the postal police. And please, don't tell me they didn't have time because the police "surprised" them. The pair were outside waiting for the carabinieri by then.
But they were surprised, that's why the police caught Amanda outside with the mop in her hand.



Oh.
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 06:16 AM   #327
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,852
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
I go back and forth on this. Komponisto (who used to post in these threads) said the Chieffi decision invalidated the Italian court's ability to function correctly - accurately processing incoming information and making appropriate decisions based on that information. That even if "something like the correct result" (M&B) eventually occurred, it was an arbitrary result and not an endorsement on the system self correcting.

I found his view to be very convincing and pretty much agreed with it. But on the other hand, reality is messy. It has edge cases. Perfect storms. The Italian system is messed up, but I just don't know enough to say it's any worse than like, for example, when we nearly sentenced David Camm to life for a crime committed by a known serial sex predator while Camm had multiple eyewitness alibis.

Amanda Knox was just caught up in an absolutely perfect storm. Bad luck her boss picked that night to cancel her shift (which would have alibied her), bad luck she decided to come home first before heading out on the country trip, bad luck the prosecutor assigned to that particular case was a conspiracy obsessed moron, bad luck or irresponsibility that she hadn't bothered to read the Passport she was eager to use (it says if you find yourself being questioned by the local police - seek help from the US consulate immediately), bad luck Rudy wasn't picked up earlier, etc.

In a perfect world the police find the killer and prosecute him before any more damage is done, but the world isn't perfect and sometimes you get these unfortunate outliers.

My interest in this story is why a weak case with bad evidence is taken so obsessively by some and how they have managed to convince themselves the evidence is more than what it clearly is.
I'm not pursuing, as some may, arguments about comparative judicial system malfunction; there are human rights violations in many countries. The ECHR does do comparisons of legal systems, but it has in the Convention and its case law an absolute minimum level that must be maintained.

The US has many problems with wrongful convictions, among a number of jurisdictions. See: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exo...es/about.aspx; currently 2,017 exonerations since 1989; this does not include the mass exonerations such as the dodgy drug-testing in Massachusetts.

I am interested in what the malfunctions are behind the wrongful convictions and how they can be corrected by improvements or reforms of judicial systems.
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 19th April 2017, 07:21 AM   #328
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Amanda Knox was just caught up in an absolutely perfect storm. Bad luck her boss picked that night to cancel her shift (which would have alibied her), bad luck she decided to come home first before heading out on the country trip, bad luck the prosecutor assigned to that particular case was a conspiracy obsessed moron, bad luck or irresponsibility that she hadn't bothered to read the Passport she was eager to use (it says if you find yourself being questioned by the local police - seek help from the US consulate immediately), bad luck Rudy wasn't picked up earlier, etc.

In a perfect world the police find the killer and prosecute him before any more damage is done, but the world isn't perfect and sometimes you get these unfortunate outliers.

My interest in this story is why a weak case with bad evidence is taken so obsessively by some and how they have managed to convince themselves the evidence is more than what it clearly is.
Add to things that the interrogating police did not know what the English idiom, "See you later", meant. The documented confusion over that puts the lie to the myth that Knox sashayed into the Questura to accuse her boss.

The problem with the Chieffi Court in 2013 was that it thought the lower courts should look at *all* evidence, however shaky or non-existent. The forensically interesting evidence all points to Rudy and Rudy alone, but the Chieffi panel reversed the first acquittal saying that all evidence, no matter how weak, should be put into the blender and - seemingly - be given equaly weight.

But the real poser is that when the DNA came back in the first few months, and once Rudy became known and Lumumba released, why weren't the other two released? Raffaele particularly simply stubbornly stayed with being an alibi for Knox, and the threat of jail and conviction did not deter him from that.

A even Mignini had said early on, he did not know why Raffaele particularly had not turned on Knox.

So this "perfect storm" eventually became the embarrassment for Mignini (and for Pisa) as highlighted in the NetFlix documentary. They are the ones whose boat sank.

Both the innocent parties are getting on with their lives right now.
__________________
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 19th April 2017, 07:37 AM   #329
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,852
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Add to things that 1. the interrogating police did not know what the English idiom, "See you later", meant. The documented confusion over that puts the lie to the myth that Knox sashayed into the Questura to accuse her boss.

The problem with 2. the Chieffi Court in 2013 was that it thought the lower courts should look at *all* evidence, however shaky or non-existent. The forensically interesting evidence all points to Rudy and Rudy alone, but the Chieffi panel reversed the first acquittal saying that all evidence, no matter how weak, should be put into the blender and - seemingly - be given equaly weight.

But the real poser is that when the DNA came back in the first few months, and once Rudy became known and Lumumba released, why weren't the other two released? Raffaele particularly simply stubbornly stayed with being an alibi for Knox, and the threat of jail and conviction did not deter him from that.

A even Mignini had said early on, he did not know why Raffaele particularly had not turned on Knox.

So this "perfect storm" eventually became the embarrassment for Mignini (and for Pisa) as highlighted in the NetFlix documentary. They are the ones whose boat sank.

Both the innocent parties are getting on with their lives right now.
1. Is this "not knowing" of the idiom "see you later" really documented? I think in the Boninsegna MR (I don't have the cite handy) the "interpreter" Donino said that she understood that Knox could have meant that, but that she, the interpreter, did not explain this to the other police. (In Google translate, English "see you later" translates to "arrivederci" first, but also to "ci vediamo dopo".

If this "not knowing" is true, why did Mignini not include the final "buona sera" (= "good evening") from the justification in the arrest warrant that incompletely quotes Knox's text message to Lumumba? The incompleteness of the quote is not stated in the arrest warrant. I think it is clear that inclusion of "buona sera" makes it evident that Knox intended "see you later" (written in a literal Italian translation) in the sense of "good bye" or "arrivederci", rather than as a directive pointing to a scheduled meeting.

2. This use, expected by the Chieffi CSC panel, of all available information - to call it "evidence" is a misnomer - real or imaginary, true or false, including hearsay, is characteristic of the inquisitorial method.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th April 2017 at 07:42 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:49 AM   #330
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I doubt he considers himself the Messiah, as that is a Jewish concept.

AFAIAA at the lower levels of crime, there probably are quite a few unfairly convicted. However, at the level of aggravated murder in an Italian court with two levels of appeal, I should think any conviction is probably quite safe, given the very high bar of proof needed to send someone away for 25 years.
You say this but you apparently don't believe it. Remember, the "two levels of appeal" are second instance and Cassation. Cassation NEVER upheld a guilty verdict. Quite the contrary, Cassation overturned the lower court's conviction, acquitting both Amanda and Raffaele. And, I suppose, using your own logic I can assume any acquittal is probably quite safe as well.
Quote:
The merits court and second instance court had no choice but to convict, despite bending overbackwards for the kids and taking into account their youth.
As a reminder, there were TWO "second instance" courts to hear this case - one convicted and one acquitted. That alone should make it very clear the very dubious nature of the evidence. And before you say the Hellmann verdict was overturned I will remind you ALL of the lower courts (Massei, Hellmann, Nencini) were overturned en route to the Marasca court. You don't get to erase Hellmann without also erasing Massei and Nencini.

Bending over backwards for the kids? ...did you really say that??? Wow, that's rather hysterical. I remind you that at EVERY juncture of both the Massei and Nencini courts, whenever the defense presented evidence to refute the prosecution, both courts summarily dismissed the defense's claims, even when they were indisputably proven by science. Their bias towards the prosecution was so obvious that I still can't stop laughing at your suggestion that the courts were favorable to the kids.
Quote:
As we know, the acquittal was a political one, and not a declaration of innocence or exoneration - quite the reverse.
No, as we KNOW from reading the MR, the acquittal was due to the fact that there was no evidence indicating their involvement in the crime. You thinking it was a political decision only proves you've been deluded by the likes of Quennell and Naseer. I'd ask for evidence of your claim but why waste my time.
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 19th April 2017, 07:51 AM   #331
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. Is this "not knowing" of the idiom "see you later" really documented? I think in the Boninsegna MR (I don't have the cite handy) the "interpreter" Donino said that she understood that Knox could have meant that, but that she, the interpreter, did not explain this to the other police. (In Google translate, English "see you later" translates to "arrivederci" first, but also to "ci vediamo dopo".

If this "not knowing" is true, why did Mignini not include the final "buona sera" (= "good evening") from the justification in the arrest warrant that incompletely quotes Knox's text message to Lumumba? The incompleteness of the quote is not stated in the arrest warrant. I think it is clear that inclusion of "buona sera" makes it evident that Knox intended "see you later" (written in a literal Italian translation) in the sense of "good bye" or "arrivederci", rather than as a directive pointing to a scheduled meeting.
Firstly, Anno Donnino herself confirms that the turning point in the interrogation was the text message:
Quote:
CDV Knox Defense: But the reference to the message how did it come about? What was the first question? Who brought out the message?
Anna Donnino: Because she was asked how come she had not gone to work that night.
CDV Knox Defense: And so?
Anna Donnino: And it came out that she had received a message from her employer who in fact told her that she did not have to go to work and everything snowballed from here.
About this, the first "confession" document signed at 1:45 am, put it that Knox intended to meet Lumumba immediately after receiving the text.

As the arrest document said:
Quote:
A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX’s number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote “Ci vediamo dopo” [“See you later” or lit: “We’ll see each other after”] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.

~Decree for Arrest November 6, 2007
A more full discussion can be found at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-interrogation/

Beginning in section 7 near the bottom.
__________________
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 19th April 2017, 08:05 AM   #332
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is one of your favorite tactics; claim someone's been shown something or that you've answered it before when, in fact, you haven't. You just hope we'll give up.

Stefanoni provided NO evidence that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. She TRIED to claim this by claiming her footprints were in blood. Gino provided evidence otherwise. I understand THAT perfectly. It is YOU who refuses to accept the science. What hope an umpty-ninth time of presenting that FACT will get through to you? Not much.

NO forensic evidence was presented that Amanda washed her hands of blood. You were asked to provide FORENSIC evidence of that and you never did...or could. And neither did the court. Stefanoni herself testified that the SOURCE of Amanda's DNA in the mixed DNA samples could not be identified. That is another fact you just ignore.
Imagine for a moment you were on PMF and making the case for innocence... lets say in this case we're discussing the Luminol traces (OK, so you have to also pretend you've not been banned for such heresy and, if on dot nut, it's Tuesday...) and you make a claim and the gang jumps all over you and asks for proof. You would jump at the chance. You'd list numerous authoritative sites that make it clear Luminol is presumptive only and meaningless without further tests; you would list numerous authoritative sites that make it clear a negative TMB result is fairly definitive there is no blood present; you would list numerous authoritative sites that make it clear if there is no DNA present it is nearly definitive to not be blood and further, the sample can't be attributed to anyone. And then, of course, you would include some common sense... a sample that tests negative for blood and negative for DNA is not a sample made from the victim's blood. You'd also likely demand they provide a scientific explanation for how it could be and it would need to come from an authoritative source, not the word of Quennell or Naseer.

The point is, you would jump at the request because you can easily and definitively make your case and you would especially want to do it because the vast majority say you are ignorant and don't know what you're talking about. So when Vixen continues to evade producing a shred of evidence to support her claims it's pretty much tantamount to her admitting she has no such evidence and to conjure up something even remotely resembling proof is beyond even her impressive distortion skills.
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 19th April 2017, 08:20 AM   #333
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen throws that gem into her argument every once in a while. Where she got it from, no one knows. To my knowledge, not even the most vitriolic PGP has ever claimed that.

I wish Vixen would expand on why she believes that the convicting courts "bent over backwards" for the kids. Sentencing them for something they did not do hardly fits that sentiment!!


Don't forget Machiavelli in this. Machiavelli has accused both Claudio Hellmann and Wladimiro De Nunzio, presidente della Corte d'appello di Perugia, of committing crimes in this regard.
It truly is laughable. I mean, think about it... did either of those courts even once side with the defense on ANY issue? Whether it was the Luminol prints that had to be blood because what else could it be, or Quintavalle's 180 degree turnaround testimony that had to be accurate because why would he lie, or Curatolo's contradictory testimony that nonetheless had to be accurate because remembering the guys in the white suits is something you wouldn't get wrong, or Nara's testimony is absolute, never mind she has no idea what time it was, never told anyone about it and has since been proven she couldn't have heard it anyway... one could go on and on. If that's bending over backwards for the defense I'd hate to see what a pro-prosecution court would have been like!

As for Machiavelli - but of course, what option did he have? Admit those courts reached a reasonable verdict in a legal fashion? That won't fly in Guiltersville. I would assume he has an explanation for why, in over two years, there has been zero legal action taken in Italy for these illegal court actions and why the media isn't all over this?
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 19th April 2017, 08:26 AM   #334
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,852
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Firstly, Anno Donnino herself confirms that the turning point in the interrogation was the text message:
About this, the first "confession" document signed at 1:45 am, put it that Knox intended to meet Lumumba immediately after receiving the text.

As the arrest document said:
A more full discussion can be found at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-interrogation/

Beginning in section 7 near the bottom.
Here's my point: The text message is:

The Text: Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata.

Translation: ‘Sure. See you later. Have a nice evening!

What Mignini put into the arrest warrant was:

A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX’s number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote “Ci vediamo dopo” [“See you later” or lit: “We’ll see each other after”] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.

~Decree for Arrest November 6, 2007

What Ficarra claims it meant to her is not that relevant; she is protecting herself. She's a lower rank police officer. Mignini, the prosecutor, is the legal head of the investigation who interprets the evidence.

The FACT is that the statement MIGNINI put into the arrest warrant is a truncated version of the text message that, by the truncation, makes it seem potentially a reference to a meeting rather than an expression of good wishes at the end of a conversation. To me, this truncation is an indication of intent to mislead the judicial system beginning with the GUP, the magistrate who will review the arrest. Had the phrase "Buono serata" that was in the original text message been included, it would be clear that the text was a "have a good evening" response and not a reference to a planned meeting.

Probably the idiomatic Italian for "see you later" would be "ciao", but Knox was not a native or experienced Italian speaker at the time of her arrest.

See: https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...-see-you-later

Last edited by Numbers; 19th April 2017 at 08:30 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 08:31 AM   #335
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I doubt he considers himself the Messiah, as that is a Jewish concept.

AFAIAA at the lower levels of crime, there probably are quite a few unfairly convicted. However, at the level of aggravated murder in an Italian court with two levels of appeal, I should think any conviction is probably quite safe, given the very high bar of proof needed to send someone away for 25 years. The merits court and second instance court had no choice but to convict, despite bending overbackwards for the kids and taking into account their youth.

As we know, the acquittal was a political one, and not a declaration of innocence or exoneration - quite the reverse.
Well, since I can only guess at what Naseer's religion is, and being an agnostic myself I won't profess to have great insight into anything related to religion, but a quick check into Wikipedia on the subject comes up with;

Originally Posted by Wikipedia entry for "Messiah"
In Christianity, the Messiah is called the Christ, from Ancient Greek: χριστός, translating the Hebrew word of the same meaning.[12] The concept of the Messiah in Christianity originated from the Messiah in Judaism. However, unlike the concept of the Messiah in Judaism and Islam, the Messiah in Christianity is the Son of God. Christ became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth,
The Messiah also exists in Islam, so clearly the "Messiah" is not strictly a Jewish concept. Of course, this has zero bearing on the Kercher murder but it does tend to support the idea that you don't really dig very deep before making observations. I could also point out that he has referred to himself as the Messiah, but that would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
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 19th April 2017, 08:38 AM   #336
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's my point: The text message is:

The Text: Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata.

Translation: ‘Sure. See you later. Have a nice evening!

What Mignini put into the arrest warrant was:

A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX’s number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote “Ci vediamo dopo” [“See you later” or lit: “We’ll see each other after”] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.

~Decree for Arrest November 6, 2007

What Ficarra claims it meant to her is not that relevant; she is protecting herself. She's a lower rank police officer. Mignini, the prosecutor, is the legal head of the investigation who interprets the evidence.

The FACT is that the statement MIGNINI put into the arrest warrant is a truncated version of the text message that, by the truncation, makes it seem potentially a reference to a meeting rather than an expression of good wishes at the end of a conversation. To me, this truncation is an indication of intent to mislead the judicial system beginning with the GUP, the magistrate who will review the arrest. Had the phrase "Buono serata" that was in the original text message been included, it would be clear that the text was a "have a good evening" response and not a reference to a planned meeting.

Probably the idiomatic Italian for "see you later" would be "ciao", but Knox was not a native or experienced Italian speaker at the time of her arrest.

See: https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...-see-you-later
Thanks Numbers, it's a point well taken. I sure would love to see someone challenge Mignini on this and demand an explanation. It would be right up there with my wish for Stefanoni to explain why she recorded 36B as positive and proceeded to amplify while recording 36C as negative when both 36B and 36C had identical lab results and that by every standard in the book, worldwide, 36B should never have been amplified. It blows my mind that she never had to account for that very obvious witch hunt stunt.
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 19th April 2017, 09:16 AM   #337
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Deputy Admin
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka Southern Tier)
Posts: 29,660
Mod WarningMoved a few posts about the posters off to AAH. Please return to discussing the case, not each other.
Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis 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 19th April 2017, 09:18 AM   #338
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,852
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Thanks Numbers, it's a point well taken. I sure would love to see someone challenge Mignini on this and demand an explanation. It would be right up there with my wish for Stefanoni to explain why she recorded 36B as positive and proceeded to amplify while recording 36C as negative when both 36B and 36C had identical lab results and that by every standard in the book, worldwide, 36B should never have been amplified. It blows my mind that she never had to account for that very obvious witch hunt stunt.
It's not an issue of challenging Mignini; the acts were already done by him in his official capacity. Rather, what is the responsibility of the State of Italy in this matter? Isn't there an obligation for the State, and its agents, to follow the law? The law in Italy (it's in the CPP) is that a prosecutor must present all exculpatory as well as all inculpatory evidence. Obviously, this Italian law, as well as many others, were violated by the prosecution (and the judiciary) in this case, and this incident of the truncated and thus misleading quotation of an allegedly incriminating text message is only one example of exculpatory evidence being INTENTIONALLY SUPPRESSED by State agents obligated under law to present exculpatory evidence as well as inculpatory evidence.

Thus, the question is what judgment and what redress a higher court, such as the ECHR - which evaluates the actions of agents of the State as the actions of the State itself - would render on such issues.
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 19th April 2017, 10:15 AM   #339
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It's not an issue of challenging Mignini; the acts were already done by him in his official capacity. Rather, what is the responsibility of the State of Italy in this matter? Isn't there an obligation for the State, and its agents, to follow the law? The law in Italy (it's in the CPP) is that a prosecutor must present all exculpatory as well as all inculpatory evidence. Obviously, this Italian law, as well as many others, were violated by the prosecution (and the judiciary) in this case, and this incident of the truncated and thus misleading quotation of an allegedly incriminating text message is only one example of exculpatory evidence being INTENTIONALLY SUPPRESSED by State agents obligated under law to present exculpatory evidence as well as inculpatory evidence.

Thus, the question is what judgment and what redress a higher court, such as the ECHR - which evaluates the actions of agents of the State as the actions of the State itself - would render on such issues.
I don't disagree, but at some point individuals who had a responsibility to be truthful and honest were not and there needs to be an understanding as to why that was. Just as when a court convicts someone for murder the quest for justice is completed but it often leaves many questions unanswered. Only by getting direct statements from the convicted can you begin to understand the motive behind the crime. So yeah, somewhere within the Italian legal system someone should have been observing the investigation and trials and taken Mignini to task on his modified version of the message, but I still want to hear from Mignini himself as well as Stefanoni. How they respond could be very telling to the overall investigation and it's motivations. Besides which, the Italian legal system has repeatedly shown a propensity to protect it's own. I have little hope either Mignini or Stefanoni will ever come under review for their performance in this case but direct questioning would force them to explain themselves.
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 19th April 2017, 10:44 AM   #340
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
As for Machiavelli - but of course, what option did he have? Admit those courts reached a reasonable verdict in a legal fashion? That won't fly in Guiltersville. I would assume he has an explanation for why, in over two years, there has been zero legal action taken in Italy for these illegal court actions and why the media isn't all over this?
Ah, but there has been court action. Andrea Vogt herself reported on an armchair guilter who tried to initiate such a claim in a Florence courtroom. She said that the upshot of that was to simply extend the Kercher's pain, when what the ISC had done in March 2015 was to close the case forever by acquitting the pair.
__________________
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 19th April 2017, 11:03 AM   #341
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,690
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Ah, but there has been court action. Andrea Vogt herself reported on an armchair guilter who tried to initiate such a claim in a Florence courtroom. She said that the upshot of that was to simply extend the Kercher's pain, when what the ISC had done in March 2015 was to close the case forever by acquitting the pair.

Yes, I wonder how that claim progressed.....?

And I wonder how things are going on any potential actions related to the (apparently vividly clear, in certain people's minds) corruption, bribery and/or political intervention which nobbled both Hellmann's and Marasca's courts. Imagine! Corruption in the highest trial court in Italy! What a tremendous scandal that would be!

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 19th April 2017, 11:15 AM   #342
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,573
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, lordy. Where's a face palm emoticon when I need one? When asked why Knox and Sollecito would leave incriminating evidence behind for the police to find you asked why would Loeb and Leopold leave bespoke glasses at the scene of their crime. The difference is that Knox and Sollecito KNEW the bathmat and blood were in the bathroom. They did not dispose of either, instead pointing them out to the police. Loeb and Leopold did NOT KNOW they had left Leopold's glasses behind. What is so hard to understand?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
How do you know they knew?
We know because Raffaele mentioned blood in the bathroom in his 112 calls BEFORE (as the courts accepted) the postales arrived.

Quote:
POLICE: So listen, they entered... they broke a window... and how do you know they entered?

RS: It can be seen by the signs... that there are drops... there are blood stains in the bathroom.
Quote:
RS:The blood stains are in the bathroom.

Then there's the postal policeman Marzi's testimony. According to TMofMK:

Quote:
Fabio Marzi testified that Sollecito showed him the break-in room "specifying that it was not stolen anything," while Knox pointed out the tracks on the sink and on a mat in the bathroom next to the room of the victim.
That's how we know.
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 19th April 2017, 11:16 AM   #343
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The ECHR case law and other documentation explaining its role must be read carefully and without bias.

The finding of an Article 3 and/or Article 6 violation of an unfair trial in which the rights of the convicted person were prejudiced results in the ECHR finding that the applicant (who was the person unfairly tried) must be allowed to seek redress by requesting a retrial (in Italy, called a revison trial) in which the applicant's Convention rights are fully respected. This is what the respondent state (Italy) would be obligated to allow under the Council of Europe treaty*. An Italian Constitutional Court ruling mandates that the Italian judiciary must consider the request for revision of a convicted person when the ECHR issues a final judgment that proceedings must be reopened as a result of an unfair trial.

* In contrast, an appeal court would simply quash the conviction. The ECHR does not quash convictions. It, with supervision by the Committee of Ministers, directs the respondent state to redress the unfair trial by holding a new trial at the request of the unfairly convicted person.
It's hard to see how Amanda's rights were 'prejudiced', when she went to the Questura of her own volition and brought up Patrick of her own accord.

Seriously, lots of people give statements to police every day. In this case, all of the housemates, all of Mez' friends (and being very popular it was a large number of them), the friends of Filomena, the people who hung around the Domus and Merlin, anyone connected to Le Chic, etc.,etc.

None of them claimed that some random guy raped and murdered Mez.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 11:19 AM   #344
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here is an excerpt from an ECHR judgment on an Article 6 violation illustrating how the ECHR provides in its verdict for the opportunity of redress by a retrial or new trial to be conducted with the applicant's Convention rights fully respected (inline citations omitted):

"ALEKSANDR ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA 39660/02 18/02/2010

65. The Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if so requested by the person concerned .... The Court observes, in that connection, that Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court has found a violation of the Convention*...."

* A decision of the Constitutional Court of Italy (judgment 113 of 2011) provides for this reopening of proceedings by means of requesting a revision trial for cases in which the ECHR finds that an Italian trial was in violation of the Convention.
When it refers to 'violation of rights', it means in a material way.

The preamble to submitting a claim to ECHR spells out there is no point putting forward trivial issues.

In addition, it has to pass the first hurdle of 'admissability'. Amanda's attorney did not lodge a complaint about her treatment, as he is obliged to under Italy's protocols.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 11:25 AM   #345
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is one of your favorite tactics; claim someone's been shown something or that you've answered it before when, in fact, you haven't. You just hope we'll give up.

Stefanoni provided NO evidence that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. She TRIED to claim this by claiming her footprints were in blood. Gino provided evidence otherwise. I understand THAT perfectly. It is YOU who refuses to accept the science. What hope an umpty-ninth time of presenting that FACT will get through to you? Not much.

NO forensic evidence was presented that Amanda washed her hands of blood. You were asked to provide FORENSIC evidence of that and you never did...or could. And neither did the court. Stefanoni herself testified that the SOURCE of Amanda's DNA in the mixed DNA samples could not be identified. That is another fact you just ignore.
The blood in the bathroom was the strongest piece of evidence and which convinced both Stefanoni and Mignini, independently, of Amanda's sure presence at the scene.

May I suggest you read what she has to say in Darkness Descending.

You do know that there was no trace of Rudy in the small bathroom, or even Filomena's room.

To ask of you your own question: how did Rudy manage to commit such a bloody act without leaving a trace of himself in either the bathroom or the burglary room?

How did he have the presence of mind to look for Mez' door key in order to lock her in, but yet leave the front door swinging open?
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11

Last edited by Vixen; 19th April 2017 at 12:01 PM.
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 19th April 2017, 11:32 AM   #346
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
For those who believe that results from a lab technician, such as "Doctor"* Stefanoni cannot or should not be questioned in court, when the partial results released by the lab tech appear suspect, there is this case of forensic lab misconduct from the US:

"Nearly 20,000 drug convictions dismissed over chemist's misconduct

Because of a lab chemist's widespread criminal misconduct in analyzing drug samples, about 95% of 20,000 drug convictions in Massachusetts have been dismissed....

Those drug convictions had relied on analysis from Annie Dookhan, a former chemist for the Department of Public Health. Dookhan worked testing drug samples submitted by law enforcement agencies from 2003 until 2012, when investigators accused her of contaminating drug samples, falsifying results, and mishandling evidence.

Investigators said she admitted to intentionally contaminating some samples to turn them from negative samples into positive samples. She also admitted to "dry labbing" in which she tested a few samples but reported the same results for multiple other samples.
Dookhan pleaded guilty in November 2013 to 27 criminal counts in all, including charges of perjury, evidence tampering and obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to 3 to 5 years in prison, and was released last year. ...."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/us/ann...an-drug-tests/

* In Italy, the title "doctor" is given to those who have completed an undergraduate (3 or 4 year) degree, equivalent to the (4 year) BS or BA degrees in the US.
Unlike Drs Gill, Hampikian or Budowle, Dr Stefanoni was cross-examined under oath in court.

The insinuation that Dr Stefanoni is somehow 'bent' is completely unwarranted and unkind.

Even Vecchiotti & Conti had to concur under oath that her labs were not contaminated.

In addition, all parties were mandated to have an expert witness present when she carried out her forensic tests.

None of them lodged any complaint at the time.

Ultimately, it is a desperate clutching of straws.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 11:39 AM   #347
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
It truly is laughable. I mean, think about it... did either of those courts even once side with the defense on ANY issue? Whether it was the Luminol prints that had to be blood because what else could it be, or Quintavalle's 180 degree turnaround testimony that had to be accurate because why would he lie, or Curatolo's contradictory testimony that nonetheless had to be accurate because remembering the guys in the white suits is something you wouldn't get wrong, or Nara's testimony is absolute, never mind she has no idea what time it was, never told anyone about it and has since been proven she couldn't have heard it anyway... one could go on and on. If that's bending over backwards for the defense I'd hate to see what a pro-prosecution court would have been like!

As for Machiavelli - but of course, what option did he have? Admit those courts reached a reasonable verdict in a legal fashion? That won't fly in Guiltersville. I would assume he has an explanation for why, in over two years, there has been zero legal action taken in Italy for these illegal court actions and why the media isn't all over this?
It will come. As Shakespeare put it, 'There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 11:47 AM   #348
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Add to things that the interrogating police did not know what the English idiom, "See you later", meant. The documented confusion over that puts the lie to the myth that Knox sashayed into the Questura to accuse her boss.

The problem with the Chieffi Court in 2013 was that it thought the lower courts should look at *all* evidence, however shaky or non-existent. The forensically interesting evidence all points to Rudy and Rudy alone, but the Chieffi panel reversed the first acquittal saying that all evidence, no matter how weak, should be put into the blender and - seemingly - be given equaly weight.

But the real poser is that when the DNA came back in the first few months, and once Rudy became known and Lumumba released, why weren't the other two released? Raffaele particularly simply stubbornly stayed with being an alibi for Knox, and the threat of jail and conviction did not deter him from that.

A even Mignini had said early on, he did not know why Raffaele particularly had not turned on Knox.

So this "perfect storm" eventually became the embarrassment for Mignini (and for Pisa) as highlighted in the NetFlix documentary. They are the ones whose boat sank.

Both the innocent parties are getting on with their lives right now.
Of course they did. Police have to be graduates these days.

Are you saying they should have ignored it?

Amanda, Rudy and Raff all behaved in accordance with Prisoners Dilemma (=the Nash Equilibrium). Raff is particularly calculating. As an IT boff, he probably has a higher IQ than the other two. At every step of the way he calculated the odds and rolled the die accordingly.

In fact it is shocking how cold-bloodedly and quickly he threw Amanda under the bus.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 11:47 AM   #349
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,573
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's hard to see how Amanda's rights were 'prejudiced', when she went to the Questura of her own volition and brought up Patrick of her own accord.

Seriously, lots of people give statements to police every day. In this case, all of the housemates, all of Mez' friends (and being very popular it was a large number of them), the friends of Filomena, the people who hung around the Domus and Merlin, anyone connected to Le Chic, etc.,etc.

None of them claimed that some random guy raped and murdered Mez.
Ficarra asked Knox to give her the names of anyone who had come to the house or had connections to Meredith. Ficarra asked Knox to look through her phone. Amanda did and gave her the names of several people, including Lumumba, who were on her phone. From Ficarra's testimony:

From the first time I heard her I always insisted to know who met with the victim, if she [Amanda] knew people who she [Meredith] had met, what friends, what acquaintances, came to the house, especially persons who had been to the house…

Quote:
…That evening she understood my intentions and said to me, OK. I’ll now tell you names of other people, because I invited her to look through her phone and said, Think of someone. It’s not possible that no one, or only two people, came into that house. Think of someone who could have known her. So she looked through her phone and started looking at a series of numbers and then she remembered and she said to me, Look. I thought of someone. There are other four, five people who I know she knew, some of them came to the house, I brought them myself. She gave me their phone numbers and she also gave me a reference to where, in particular for Patrick Lumumba, she told me where, in what neighborhood, he could live… At that point I told her, For me it’s important that we write these things, so, seeing as you’re waiting here, let’s go write a deposition about these things that you just gave me, that you just told me. So I went into my office and began to write…
Ficarra's testimony states that the police asked Knox who the text was to.

Quote:
“Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata”. It was the only message from that night and we asked who was this Patrick. This seemed to us an appointment, we’ll see each other later, sure, in response to the other. We didn’t find messages received at that time, so we didn’t find the message that she was responding to. We only found the one sent by her. In that moment we gave her the phone in hand and we asked her who was this person, so she left later on or not? She gave the name Patrick Lumumba and gave the deposition that then…
As for none of Meredith's friends or anyone else you mentioned claiming some random guy raped and murdered Meredith, what has that got to do with anything? They were told within days that Knox and Sollecito were the killers. Since none of these people were witnesses to the murder how in the world would they know otherwise?
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 19th April 2017, 11:54 AM   #350
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The blood in the bathroom was the strongest piece of evidence and which convinced both Stefanoni, independently, of Amanda's sure presence at the scene.

May I suggest you read what she has to say in Darkness Descending.

You do know that there was no trace of Rudy in the small bathroom, or even Filomena's room.

To ask of you your own question: how did Rudy manage to commit such a bloody act without leaving a trace of himself in either the bathroom or the burglary room?

How did he have the presence of mind to look for Mez' door key in order to lock her in, but yet leave the front door swinging open?
Which "blood in the bathroom"? The single drop of Amanda's blood, mixed with nothing, or the diluted blood samples collected during the Scientific Police's version of "how to scrub a bathroom sink clean with one collection swab"? If the former, then that proved nothing as it can't be dated (and no, Amanda not noticing it the day before is NOT proof it wasn't there). If the later, then how would it prove she was there during the murder versus her DNA being latent DNA from daily use of the sink? The question is "what evidence is there of Amanda being at the cottage at the time of the murder" and "what evidence is there of Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands". The "blood in the bathroom" doesn't prove either - not even close.

Since we know Guede went into the bathroom and washed blood from himself (because he told us so) then perhaps the question "how did he not leave a trace of himself in the bathroom" should probably go to the prosecution and to the SP. Perhaps they just weren't as good at testing a room as they should have been, or perhaps people simply don't leave a DNA trace of themselves when they rinse blood from pants and hands. Either way, Guede is the one that said he was in the small bathroom so take it up with him.

As for the key... if you recall, a key was required to open the front door. My own personal theory is that Guede forgot about this on his initial trip to the front door, when he left a trail of bloody shoe prints (and why he didn't leave one with him facing the door as he locked it... he didn't lock it on his first trip). He got to the front door, realized he needed the key and so had to go back into Meredith's room to retrieve it. On his second trip out he didn't step in blood so didn't leave new shoe prints. I suppose since he was holding the keys it occurred to him that perhaps locking the room might give him more time to get away. Anyway, once he opened the front door he likely never thought about locking it since everyone had a key anyway so he just pulled it closed, and since the latch was broken it eventually opened up. Conversely, if Amanda had been the one leaving the cottage she would have locked the door because she knew the latch was broken and that everyone in the cottage locked it routinely. That it wasn't locked points to someone who didn't know it was broken - Guede.
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 19th April 2017, 11:54 AM   #351
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post

You say this but you apparently don't believe it. Remember, the "two levels of appeal" are second instance and Cassation. Cassation NEVER upheld a guilty verdict. Quite the contrary, Cassation overturned the lower court's conviction, acquitting both Amanda and Raffaele. And, I suppose, using your own logic I can assume any acquittal is probably quite safe as well.

As a reminder, there were TWO "second instance" courts to hear this case - one convicted and one acquitted. That alone should make it very clear the very dubious nature of the evidence. And before you say the Hellmann verdict was overturned I will remind you ALL of the lower courts (Massei, Hellmann, Nencini) were overturned en route to the Marasca court. You don't get to erase Hellmann without also erasing Massei and Nencini.

Bending over backwards for the kids? ...did you really say that??? Wow, that's rather hysterical. I remind you that at EVERY juncture of both the Massei and Nencini courts, whenever the defense presented evidence to refute the prosecution, both courts summarily dismissed the defense's claims, even when they were indisputably proven by science. Their bias towards the prosecution was so obvious that I still can't stop laughing at your suggestion that the courts were favorable to the kids.


No, as we KNOW from reading the MR, the acquittal was due to the fact that there was no evidence indicating their involvement in the crime. You thinking it was a political decision only proves you've been deluded by the likes of Quennell and Naseer. I'd ask for evidence of your claim but why waste my time.
I was referring to the merits court and then the extended merits court (second instance).

1. Unlike Rudy, the kids were not caged.

2. The court dismissed the theft charge, with Micheli decreeing Rudy's actual innocence.

3. Massei let the defence have it that the 211 call came before the police arrived.

4. Massei blamed Rudy as being the instigator of the crime.

5. Massei took into account their youth and adjusted the sentence down, accordingly.

6. Massei said Amanda did not name Patrick as a direct result of her being the perpetrator (=not aggravated).

I'll say he bent over backwards.

I consider Massei to be a wise, experienced judge who knew when to let a matter go.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 11:56 AM   #352
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unlike Drs Gill, Hampikian or Budowle, Dr Stefanoni was cross-examined under oath in court.

The insinuation that Dr Stefanoni is somehow 'bent' is completely unwarranted and unkind.

Even Vecchiotti & Conti had to concur under oath that her labs were not contaminated.

In addition, all parties were mandated to have an expert witness present when she carried out her forensic tests.

None of them lodged any complaint at the time.

Ultimately, it is a desperate clutching of straws.
Please explain samples 36B and 36C. They had IDENTICAL lab results (i.e., negative for blood, negative for human species and "too low" for DNA). Why did she record 36C negative, as she should, but recorded 36B positive and then proceeded to amplify it?
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 19th April 2017, 11:58 AM   #353
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It will come. As Shakespeare put it, 'There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all.
Well, it would seem rather odd to me that after more than two years we've still not seen or heard a thing out of Italy, but if you say it's coming then I'll remain patient. How long would you wait before you might consider the alternative - that there was nothing illegal with the court's verdict?
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 19th April 2017, 12:00 PM   #354
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was referring to the merits court and then the extended merits court (second instance).

1. Unlike Rudy, the kids were not caged.

2. The court dismissed the theft charge, with Micheli decreeing Rudy's actual innocence.

3. Massei let the defence have it that the 211 call came before the police arrived.

4. Massei blamed Rudy as being the instigator of the crime.

5. Massei took into account their youth and adjusted the sentence down, accordingly.

6. Massei said Amanda did not name Patrick as a direct result of her being the perpetrator (=not aggravated).

I'll say he bent over backwards.

I consider Massei to be a wise, experienced judge who knew when to let a matter go.
I'd say he believed in guilt, but thought it obvious that this was Rudy's crime. He actually was dumbfounded that the kids had participated at all.

The real issue is, they hadn't.

But thanks, I now understand where you're coming from. We simply have a difference of opinion on that matter - MO is that by saying that, Massei, too, should have acquitted. His panel did not.

It was corrected by the Hellmann court and the Marasca-Bruno panel of the ISC.
__________________
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 19th April 2017, 12:01 PM   #355
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,573
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The blood in the bathroom was the strongest piece of evidence and which convinced both Stefanoni, independently, of Amanda's sure presence at the scene.

May I suggest you read what she has to say in Darkness Descending.

You do know that there was no trace of Rudy in the small bathroom, or even Filomena's room.

To ask of you your own question: how did Rudy manage to commit such a bloody act without leaving a trace of himself in either the bathroom or the burglary room?

How did he have the presence of mind to look for Mez' door key in order to lock her in, but yet leave the front door swinging open?
I asked you for forensic evidence that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood. The small drops of Amanda's blood on the faucet only indicate that Amanda had bled at some time. DNA cannot be dated so that is not evidence of her presence at the time of the murder.
Nor is Meredith's blood in the bathroom proof that Amanda washed her hands. As has been pointed out time and again, and which the police video proves, Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood does not mean they were left at the same time.

Darkness Descending? Oh, please.

Guede did not commit the murder in Filomena's room. Only FIVE samples were even taken in it. Has it ever occurred to you that he might have been wearing gloves on that cold night when planning on breaking into a house through a glass window?
As for the bathroom, he did leave evidence; his footprint on the bathmat. The fact that some of Meredith's blood in the bathroom (as on the light switch) did not contain anyone else's DNA is evidence that it is possible for the person who placed it there not to mix their DNA in that blood.

Where do women keep their house keys? In their purses...where they also keep their wallets and phones. We know he was in her purse from his DNA on it. He locked her door to keep her in and/or to keep others out. He left the front door unlocked because he didn't know the latch was broken when he pulled it closed behind him. Locking it would not have accomplished anything considering all the roommates had keys to unlock it.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th April 2017 at 12:05 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 19th April 2017, 12:15 PM   #356
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,194
I think most of us with obvious exception believe the ECHR will rule against Italy and in favor of Amanda. I'm wondering what practical effect that will have on Amanda.

Obviously, She won't have to pay Patrick any money but is that it? Given that Italy refused to pay Patrick I'm guessing they won't have any money for Amanda either. The PGP will no longer be able to claim that Amanda was convicted of anything. But this seems so unsatisfying. Any thoughts?
__________________
“ 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 19th April 2017, 12:17 PM   #357
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,302
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Well, it would seem rather odd to me that after more than two years we've still not seen or heard a thing out of Italy, but if you say it's coming then I'll remain patient. How long would you wait before you might consider the alternative - that there was nothing illegal with the court's verdict?
It surely has to come to a head, with Raff appealing the Florence court and taking out a writ against nine judiciary officials and possibly the prosecutors if allowed after the prehearing in respect of this.

Bruno is head of Fifth Chambers so if Bongiorno steers the appeal there, all sorts of politics could play out.

Investigations in Italy are by nature secret it can take years for an official to be done for abuse of office (cf Vecchiotti).
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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 19th April 2017, 12:30 PM   #358
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,506
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I think most of us with obvious exception believe the ECHR will rule against Italy and in favor of Amanda. I'm wondering what practical effect that will have on Amanda.

Obviously, She won't have to pay Patrick any money but is that it? Given that Italy refused to pay Patrick I'm guessing they won't have any money for Amanda either. The PGP will no longer be able to claim that Amanda was convicted of anything. But this seems so unsatisfying. Any thoughts?
The PGP will claim protections against self incrimination place an undue burden on solving criminal cases.

They're right. Imagine how many cases we could close by rounding up clueless 20 year old girls in the middle of the night and beating pre-arranged statements out of them.
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 19th April 2017, 12:34 PM   #359
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was referring to the merits court and then the extended merits court (second instance).

1. Unlike Rudy, the kids were not caged.

2. The court dismissed the theft charge, with Micheli decreeing Rudy's actual innocence.

3. Massei let the defence have it that the 211 call came before the police arrived.

4. Massei blamed Rudy as being the instigator of the crime.

5. Massei took into account their youth and adjusted the sentence down, accordingly.

6. Massei said Amanda did not name Patrick as a direct result of her being the perpetrator (=not aggravated).

I'll say he bent over backwards.

I consider Massei to be a wise, experienced judge who knew when to let a matter go.
1. Guede wasn't always caged either.
2. Massei convicted them on theft of the cell phones even though there was no evidence.
3. He had to as the defense proved it.
4. ??
5. Massei did not take their age into account on the sentences - Per Massei MR; The element of continuance together with the crimes of simulation [staging] and of unjustifiable carrying of the knife and of the theft of the cell phones determines, with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, an increase of the punishment of a further 1 year and thus Raffaele Sollecito is condemned to 25 years of imprisonment. In relation to the fact that in addition to the said crimes Amanda Knox is also answerable for the crime of calunnia, she must be condemned to a total punishment of 26 years of imprisonment (base penalty 24 years; increased to 24 years and 6 months for the simulation [staging]; to 24 years and 9 months for carrying the knife; to 25 years for theft and increased, finally, by a further year for calunnia)
6. Kind of weird wording on your part but clearly Massei cut Amanda no slack on this. He ruled she was creating a diversion and deliberately names Lumumba as the perp.

So out of all of this the only thing that had a little merit was not being placed in the cage. How kind... If it had been me I would gladly trade being put into the cage for a judge who would rule based on evidence and not speculation.
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 19th April 2017, 02:02 PM   #360
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, being present at the murder scene, washing off the victim's blood and covering up for Rudy. Yes, truly admirable, I am sure!
I don't comment on this site often but I read it a lot. This comment is nothing more than an outrageous lie. It's founded on a complete and deliberate misunderstanding (twisting) of the nuances of law.

I refer you to Italian law, judicial facts, and appeals. It's all there. It's been explained to you before, but still you choose to go your own way.

You're playing with someone's life and future here, Vixen. Shame on you!!!
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
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 05:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.