ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 10th March 2019, 03:05 PM   #3281
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
[quote=acbytesla;12628004]Governors usually have pardon authority in their respective state for state laws which most criminal offenses are. POTUS has no pardon authorities involving state offenses.

Murder for example unless the victim is a member of the military is usually a state violation. There are other unique conditions which would make it Federal.[/QUOTE]

Including if it entailed a civil rights violation and if it occured in D.C.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 03:47 PM   #3282
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,420
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Governors usually have pardon authority in their respective state for state laws which most criminal offenses are. POTUS has no pardon authorities involving state offenses.

Murder for example unless the victim is a member of the military is usually a state violation. There are other unique conditions which would make it Federal.
Or if it happened during a bank heist or during the comission of another Federal crime.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Including if it entailed a civil rights violation and if it occured in D.C.
But none of this matters as a pardon without an annulment of the conviction is worthless.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 10th March 2019 at 05:31 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 04:20 PM   #3283
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
[quote=acbytesla;12628037]
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post

Or if it happened during a bank heist or during the comission of another Federal crime.

But none of this matters as a pardon without an annulment of the conviction is worthless.
Ryan Ferguson and the Memphis Three have never had a Certificate of Innocence. So much for their worthless claims of being 'exonerated'.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 05:14 PM   #3284
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,931
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There's a big difference between some journalist spouting off about politics (i.e., abortion) although probably unwise to target a judge, and someone convicted fairly and squarely* of a serious criminal offence that attracts up to six years imprisonment.

*As upheld by a fair merits trial, two appeal courts and the supreme court.

Not even ECHR recommended a pardon.
What case are we talking about? Both AK and RS were acquitted almost 4 years ago.....
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 05:21 PM   #3285
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,420
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Ryan Ferguson and the Memphis Three have never had a Certificate of Innocence. So much for their worthless claims of being 'exonerated'.

WRONG. Ryan Ferguson's conviction was vacated so his claim that he was exonerated is 100 percent true.

The West Memphis Three negotiated a plea deal while incarcerated where they entered an Alford plea in exchange for being released.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 10th March 2019 at 05:25 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 05:27 PM   #3286
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
[quote=Vixen;12628059]
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs acbytesla

Or if it happened during a bank heist or during the comission of another Federal crime.

But none of this matters as a pardon without an annulment of the conviction is worthless.
Ryan Ferguson and the Memphis Three have never had a Certificate of Innocence. So much for their worthless claims of being 'exonerated'.
1) What the hell does this have to do with Knox?

2) DNA ruled out the Memphis 3 100% as the killers. But that's not good enough for some people who think only a Cert of Innocence exonerates someone.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 10th March 2019 at 05:35 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 05:39 PM   #3287
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,420
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post

1) What the hell does this have to do with Knox?

2) DNA ruled out the Memphis 3 100% as the killers. But that's not good enough for some people who think only a Cert of Innocence exonerates someone.
Legally Vixen would be correct about the West Memphis Three. And this is why it will be nice for Italy to annul the Calunia conviction.

But no one other than those being disingenuous would say they weren't exonerated. The fact is that after 18 years in prison they took a deal to get out. Who could really blame them?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 10th March 2019 at 05:42 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 05:51 PM   #3288
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Legally Vixen would be correct about the West Memphis Three. And this is why it will be nice for Italy to annul the Calunia conviction.

But no one other than those being disingenuous would say they weren't exonerated. The fact is that after 18 years in prison they took a deal to get out. Who could really blame them?
I find it amusing that she resorts to bringing up two cases that have nothing to do with the calunnia
case.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 10th March 2019 at 05:53 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 06:08 PM   #3289
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
WRONG. Ryan Ferguson's conviction was vacated so his claim that he was exonerated is 100 percent true.

The West Memphis Three negotiated a plea deal while incarcerated where they entered an Alford plea in exchange for being released.
Ferguson was complaining in the press he has not been given a certification of innocence.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 06:17 PM   #3290
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I find it amusing that she resorts to bringing up two cases that have nothing to do with the calunnia
case.
And she still can't admit her simple & stupid error a while back in which she claimed Ferguson took an Alford Plea. Both Ferguson & Echols are seemingly friends with Knox. That's the only reason she brings them up.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 06:19 PM   #3291
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ferguson was complaining in the press he has not been given a certification of innocence.
Citation please.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 06:41 PM   #3292
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ferguson was complaining in the press he has not been given a certification of innocence.
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Citation please.
You are an optimist, aren't ya?
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 06:44 PM   #3293
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ferguson was complaining in the press he has not been given a certification of innocence.
I'd ask for a citation, but I know better.

Quote:
After unsuccessfully
appealing his case, Ferguson finally had his conviction vacated in 2013 on
habeas corpus review. Although the court did not rule on Ferguson's
actual innocence-instead vacating the conviction on the ground that the
government had failed to produce exculpatory material as required
by
Brady v. Maryland8-it did express significant doubts that the government
would want to retry Ferguson.9 Among the reasons the court cited
were that Erickson had recanted his testimony implicating Ferguson,
Trump had recanted his identification of Ferguson, Trump had stated that
he felt that the police pressured him into identifying Ferguson, a third
witness had testified that Ferguson was not the man observed at the scene
of the crime, and yet another witness had testified that she had seen Ferguson
elsewhere around the same time that the crime was committed
Cultivating Judgment on the Tools of Wrongful
Conviction (Meghan J. Ryan) SMU Law Review Volume 68 | Issue 4 Article 5
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 07:09 PM   #3294
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,420
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ferguson was complaining in the press he has not been given a certification of innocence.
That may be true, but his conviction was vacated.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 07:28 PM   #3295
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
That may be true, but his conviction was vacated.
I think 'may' is the operative word here.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 02:18 AM   #3296
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,420
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think 'may' is the operative word here.
EXACTLY.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 11:58 AM   #3297
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
In the ECHR Country Profile for Italy updated February, 2019, the case of Knox v. Italy is now listed under "Noteworthy cases, judgments delivered" and "Violations of Article 3" on pages 6-7. The same text is repeated, under "Cases concerning Article 6" and subhead "Right to the assistance of an interpreter" on page 9. The text is:

Knox v. Italy
24.01.2019
The case concerned proceedings leading to the conviction of Amanda Knox for malicious accusation. During a police interview on 6 November 2007 Ms Knox accused a pub manager of killing her flatmate. The man was subsequently found to be innocent and she was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for making a malicious accusation.
Hi Numbers. I was under the impression that Raffaele had an ongoing case with the ECtHR but I can't find much about it online. He would certainly have been a suspect at least when to cops got all excited about his trainers and demanded he remove them. Nina Burleigh also stated in her book that the cops were at his apartment while he was being questioned. Wikipedia states as follows re. Mignini's censure: "The disciplinary panel stated that he issued an oral order of prohibiting legal counsel with Sollecito, instead of issuing a written order as provided by the law." though I don't know how accurate this is. Anyway, it seems to me that Raffaele's rights have been violated as much as Amanda's though there's little online to go by and nothing on the ECHR website.

Hoots
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 12:08 PM   #3298
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Hi Numbers. I was under the impression that Raffaele had an ongoing case with the ECtHR but I can't find much about it online. He would certainly have been a suspect at least when to cops got all excited about his trainers and demanded he remove them. Nina Burleigh also stated in her book that the cops were at his apartment while he was being questioned. Wikipedia states as follows re. Mignini's censure: "The disciplinary panel stated that he issued an oral order of prohibiting legal counsel with Sollecito, instead of issuing a written order as provided by the law." though I don't know how accurate this is. Anyway, it seems to me that Raffaele's rights have been violated as much as Amanda's though there's little online to go by and nothing on the ECHR website.

Hoots
Yes, they were...and mucking about on his computer, too, as it showed activity during the time RS was being interrogated.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 04:41 PM   #3299
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,777
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Hi Numbers. I was under the impression that Raffaele had an ongoing case with the ECtHR but I can't find much about it online. He would certainly have been a suspect at least when to cops got all excited about his trainers and demanded he remove them. Nina Burleigh also stated in her book that the cops were at his apartment while he was being questioned. Wikipedia states as follows re. Mignini's censure: "The disciplinary panel stated that he issued an oral order of prohibiting legal counsel with Sollecito, instead of issuing a written order as provided by the law." though I don't know how accurate this is. Anyway, it seems to me that Raffaele's rights have been violated as much as Amanda's though there's little online to go by and nothing on the ECHR website.

Hoots
Raffaele Sollecito was denied compensation for unfair detention by a final judgment of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in June 2017, on the grounds that he had contributed to suspicions justifying his detention because of his misstatements. This denial of compensation may itself be considered unfair. There was a statement by one of his lawyers following that CSC judgment that Raffaele would apply to the ECHR claiming a violation of his Convention rights regarding this CSC judgment.

I don't know whether or not Raffaele has lodged an application with the ECHR.

To date, there has been no Communication to Italy regarding such an application in the HUDOC database. However, because it takes a long time for the ECHR to publish a communication when an application contains one or more admissible claims, this lack of a communication so far does not mean that there won't be one that will be published in the next year or two.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 04:54 PM   #3300
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,777
There have been some articles in the Italian media on Raffaele's response to the ECHR judgment in Amanda's favor.

One of them is:

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronac...i-1634447.html

Here's a Google translation; I have tried to help its rough spots:

Crime of Perugia, Sollecito: "Amanda and I were treated like mafiosi"

Raffaele Sollecito, who has moved to France for work for a month, says he is satisfied with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights that sentenced Italy to pay 18,400 euros to Amanda Knox for violating her right to defense.

This is what Raffaele Sollecito said with great satisfaction to Adnkronos following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which condemned Italy to pay 18,400 euros to Amada Knox for violating her right to defense.

"Many people blamed me saying that I was defending a calculating and unscrupulous murderer. Everyone painted me as a person subjugated by this sort of "black widow" but it was only a construction of the press".

Sollecito and Knox were finally acquitted for the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher, the English student found dead in the evening of 1 November 2007 in an apartment in Perugia.

The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights concerns the case lodged by the US citizen [Amanda Knox] against the Italian state and concerns the procedure by which Italian justice came to condemn Knox for malicious false accusation against Patrick Lumumba.

Also to the Adnkronos, Raffaele Sollecito stated that "in my case there was no violence in physical terms, but I have always stressed [by] the senseless psychological violence: we were more than ten hours at night at the police station, kept as mafiosi who tried to escape their responsibilities. They were actually making a hole in the water. "

On the fact that, according to the [European] Court [of Human Rights], there is no evidence [in the possession of the ECHR] of the inhuman treatment of which Knox had complained, Sollecito admits that "it is difficult to prove that there has been ill-treatment at the police station. I cannot say anything about this, when I was questioned Amanda was far from me ".

A nightmare experienced by the computer engineer, originally from Puglia, who absolutely wants to finally get [it] behind him. In fact, for about a month he moved to France to take advantage of a new job opportunity. "I live in France, I moved here for work, I had an opportunity and I moved."

Sentenced by the first degree [trial] and then acquitted, Sollecito graduated in 2008 while he was held in the Perugia prison of Capanne. In 2014 he graduated [with an advanced degree] in computer engineering at the University of Verona.

Acquitted definitively by the [Court of] Cassation, he had then undertaken some work projects, such as the creation of a start-up, called 'Be on memories', dedicated to the commemoration of the dead. The idea, he explained later, came from the memory of his mother. "The start up is still active".

Also his contacts with Amanda Knox are still active: "We talk to each other and hear each other by [online] message" said Sollecito, who concluded by saying he was "happy to stand tall about a story that has tarnished my name and my family's name".
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 05:54 PM   #3301
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Quote:
Also his contacts with Amanda Knox are still active: "We talk to each other and hear each other by [online] message" said Sollecito
But, but...according to some PGP, AK dropped poor RS like a hot potato and they don't even speak to each other. Could they possibly have been making this up?
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 10:27 AM   #3302
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,931
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But, but...according to some PGP, AK dropped poor RS like a hot potato and they don't even speak to each other. Could they possibly have been making this up?
But, but...according to some PGP, RS dropped poor AK like a hot potato after the Nencini conviction when he and Bongiorno adopted the "separation strategy" and they haven't even spoken to each other since. Could the guilter-nutters possibly have been making this up?

BTW - the separation strategy worked. Nencini had made a point of saying that anything which tended to incriminate one, necessarily incriminated the other.

Yet in his appeal document to Cassazione, Sollecito consistently said of the claimed evidence against Knox, "What does this point have to do with me?"

A calm and measured consideration of that question produced a series of conclusions, all of which were, "They have nothing to do with you, regardless of Nencini's declaration that they did."

The case against Sollecito then collapsed. With the case against Sollecito gone, a calm and measured reconsideration of the claimed evidence against Knox made a conviction against her collapse as well. This is before considering the final point that the 2015 Supreme Court said was conclusive, that no presence of Knox had ever been found in the murder room, which the ISC said had been decisive! The only real "evidence" against Knox had been Rudy Guede's claim that it was Knox who'd interrupted his claimed "consensual sex" he'd been having with the victim - after which an argument had broken out over rent money. Does anyone believe Rudy on anything?

Yet, Sollecito - once freed from a coercive interrogation - continually and without interruption gave Knox an alibi. Indeed, the only reason to manufacture a case against Sollecito was to call into question any alibi he had offered. But with the case gone against him, he was as solid an alibi for Knox as that Swiss guy had been for Lumumba. (Or Filomena's boyfriend had been for her.)
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 12th March 2019 at 10:30 AM.
Bill Williams is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 02:19 PM   #3303
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,754
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
But, but...according to some PGP, RS dropped poor AK like a hot potato after the Nencini conviction when he and Bongiorno adopted the "separation strategy" and they haven't even spoken to each other since. Could the guilter-nutters possibly have been making this up?

BTW - the separation strategy worked. Nencini had made a point of saying that anything which tended to incriminate one, necessarily incriminated the other.

Yet in his appeal document to Cassazione, Sollecito consistently said of the claimed evidence against Knox, "What does this point have to do with me?"

A calm and measured consideration of that question produced a series of conclusions, all of which were, "They have nothing to do with you, regardless of Nencini's declaration that they did."

The case against Sollecito then collapsed. With the case against Sollecito gone, a calm and measured reconsideration of the claimed evidence against Knox made a conviction against her collapse as well. This is before considering the final point that the 2015 Supreme Court said was conclusive, that no presence of Knox had ever been found in the murder room, which the ISC said had been decisive! The only real "evidence" against Knox had been Rudy Guede's claim that it was Knox who'd interrupted his claimed "consensual sex" he'd been having with the victim - after which an argument had broken out over rent money. Does anyone believe Rudy on anything?

Yet, Sollecito - once freed from a coercive interrogation - continually and without interruption gave Knox an alibi. Indeed, the only reason to manufacture a case against Sollecito was to call into question any alibi he had offered. But with the case gone against him, he was as solid an alibi for Knox as that Swiss guy had been for Lumumba. (Or Filomena's boyfriend had been for her.)

I have rarely looked back into this interminable, often incomprehensible thread. But I wonder if this raises a key question: Did their lawyers screw up? Could Knox and Sollecito have severed their cases from the beginning? Could Guede have been discredited from the beginning? Was the fix in as soon as they were arrested, or could decent lawyers have saved them?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 03:23 PM   #3304
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,931
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I have rarely looked back into this interminable, often incomprehensible thread. But I wonder if this raises a key question: Did their lawyers screw up? Could Knox and Sollecito have severed their cases from the beginning? Could Guede have been discredited from the beginning? Was the fix in as soon as they were arrested, or could decent lawyers have saved them?
Under Italian law, prosecutors have up to a year to press charges. It leaves the defence lawyers in a quandary - just what will they end up defending their clients from?

Indeed, the 2009 first trial, the Massei trial, the two defences were very independent of one another. When the pair were (provisionally) convicted in Dec 2009, one CNN reporter cited the separation of the defenses as a reason for it, saying, "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence cases were weaker, this could very well be overturned on appeal."

In the second 2011 trial, the Hellmann trial, the defences were united, so much so that Sollecito's lawyer made copious mention of Knox's innocence, referring to her as "Jessica Rabbit," not really evil, she's just drawn that way by the prosecution. They were (provisionally) acquitted at that trial.

The prosecution appealed that acquittal to the Italian Supreme Court. Someone else might know if Sollecito/Knox submitted a joint appeal document. The 2013 Supreme Court annuled the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

I also do not know how much co-operation of the two defences was in the Nencini trial of 2014. But it didn't matter much, Nencini's Feb 2014 (provisional) reconviction simply ignored facts.

Be that as it may, the separation strategy in Sollecito's appeal to the Supreme Court - which resulted in the 2015 definitive and final acquittal - was brilliant. Some thought he'd thrown Knox under a bus, but those who think that hadn't actually read the appeal document. It really was, "This is what you say is the evidence against Knox. What does that have to do with me?"

None of it did. With Sollecito acquitted, his alibi for Knox stood.

It's hard to know the role the defence lawyers played in mucking this up. However, there were plenty of times when defence lawyers themselves were threatened with crimes if they pushed against the prosecution too hard. For instance, claiming that the Scientific police failed to produce the negative DNA controls for trial, had some judges warning defence lawyers that they either dropped that accusation, or themselves face a defamation lawsuit from the Scientific police, or Stefanoni.

Indeed, when Raffaele's lawyer went to the press after the 2015 acquittal, saying what a bozo Mignini had been, Mignini sued Raffaele's lawyer - himself publishing a document that claimed the 2015 Supreme Court acquittal had itself been illegal.

It's all bizarre. To understand all of this, one perhaps needs to read Douglas Preston's book, and his definition of "dietrology" as a uniquely Italian concept that seemed to be guiding even the lawyers!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 05:22 PM   #3305
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,777
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Under Italian law, prosecutors have up to a year to press charges. It leaves the defence lawyers in a quandary - just what will they end up defending their clients from?

Indeed, the 2009 first trial, the Massei trial, the two defences were very independent of one another. When the pair were (provisionally) convicted in Dec 2009, one CNN reporter cited the separation of the defenses as a reason for it, saying, "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence cases were weaker, this could very well be overturned on appeal."

In the second 2011 trial, the Hellmann trial, the defences were united, so much so that Sollecito's lawyer made copious mention of Knox's innocence, referring to her as "Jessica Rabbit," not really evil, she's just drawn that way by the prosecution. They were (provisionally) acquitted at that trial.

The prosecution appealed that acquittal to the Italian Supreme Court. Someone else might know if Sollecito/Knox submitted a joint appeal document. The 2013 Supreme Court annuled the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

I also do not know how much co-operation of the two defences was in the Nencini trial of 2014. But it didn't matter much, Nencini's Feb 2014 (provisional) reconviction simply ignored facts.

Be that as it may, the separation strategy in Sollecito's appeal to the Supreme Court - which resulted in the 2015 definitive and final acquittal - was brilliant. Some thought he'd thrown Knox under a bus, but those who think that hadn't actually read the appeal document. It really was, "This is what you say is the evidence against Knox. What does that have to do with me?"

None of it did. With Sollecito acquitted, his alibi for Knox stood.

It's hard to know the role the defence lawyers played in mucking this up. However, there were plenty of times when defence lawyers themselves were threatened with crimes if they pushed against the prosecution too hard. For instance, claiming that the Scientific police failed to produce the negative DNA controls for trial, had some judges warning defence lawyers that they either dropped that accusation, or themselves face a defamation lawsuit from the Scientific police, or Stefanoni.

Indeed, when Raffaele's lawyer went to the press after the 2015 acquittal, saying what a bozo Mignini had been, Mignini sued Raffaele's lawyer - himself publishing a document that claimed the 2015 Supreme Court acquittal had itself been illegal.

It's all bizarre. To understand all of this, one perhaps needs to read Douglas Preston's book, and his definition of "dietrology" as a uniquely Italian concept that seemed to be guiding even the lawyers!
1. There is a confusion here because the defenses of accused persons tried together under criminal charges are not viewed under Italian law as separate by the court, when there is commonality of argument, at least for appeals.
CPP Article 587.1 states:

In the case of concurrent persons being involved in the same offence, the appellate remedy invoked by one of the accused persons shall have effect also on the other accused, provided that it is not based exclusively on personal arguments.

In other words, Raffaele Sollecito would not have been able, under Italian law, to entirely separate any of his appellate defenses from that of Amanda Knox without contradicting his own defense in the first instance trial. Any contradiction of his own first instance trial defense in an appellate trial might or might not be viewed in his favor by the appeal court or the CSC.

2. To have accused Stefanoni of writing false information in her lab reports - official state police documents - or of providing false testimony (perjury) would have been accusing her of committing a serious crime under Italian law. Thus, the threat to the defense lawyers was not a (civil) lawsuit but a criminal charge of calunnia, that is, malicious false accusation. A conviction for calunnia may result in a prison term of several years.

Last edited by Numbers; 13th March 2019 at 05:45 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 Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 11:57 PM   #3306
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,754
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
......
2. To have accused Stefanoni of writing false information in her lab reports - official state police documents - or of providing false testimony (perjury) would have been accusing her of committing a serious crime under Italian law. Thus, the threat to the defense lawyers was not a (civil) lawsuit but a criminal charge of calunnia, that is, malicious false accusation. A conviction for calunnia may result in a prison term of several years.
Surely there would be a way to say that someone, even a cop, is mistaken or incorrect without accusing them of a crime and being accused of one in turn.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 07:47 AM   #3307
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,931
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Surely there would be a way to say that someone, even a cop, is mistaken or incorrect without accusing them of a crime and being accused of one in turn.
The turns and quirks of this marathon exposes one to the practical difficulty of implementing a "surely there is a way", in Italy. In that quasi-Inquisatorial system, the Public Minister is assumed not to be lying, this assumption far more embedded than in other systems.

Still, look what happened to Mignini. Initially he laid charges against everything that moved, except he conveniently forgot to even investigate claims the other way, like Knox claiming to be hit at interrogation. Not only did he exert his own powers solely against the pair.....

..... it was a power that eventually got eroded. His lawsuit against Sollecito and Gumbel was eventually quietly withdrawn esp. when the parallel criminal procedure was thrown out.

His defamation claim in mid 2015 against Maori et al. disappears.

Mignini has done something to himself worse than being subject to prosecution for all his satellite prosecutions..... he's been neutered and ignored.

But as Knox's parents learned, with Mignini in the system, one couldn't make claims in a foreign newspaper without having a predatory lawsuit dropped on them. Make that a "strategic predatory" lawsuit given that Mignini did not include either the newspiece's author (Follain) or the publisher. That last part gives Mignini's game away.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:30 AM   #3308
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,777
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Surely there would be a way to say that someone, even a cop, is mistaken or incorrect without accusing them of a crime and being accused of one in turn.
The defense lawyers did show, in their cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses and in the testimony of defense witnesses, inconsistencies in the prosecution case. Similarly, the court-appointed DNA experts in the Hellmann trial pointed out the many difficiencies in Stefanoni's DNA profiling, starting with the improper collection of specimens.

The implicit threat of calunnia charges against the defense lawyers came from the judge during the Massei court trial when the defense lawyers called explicit attention to certain inconsistencies.

Amanda Knox was charged with aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini for her descriptions of the actions of the police and Mignini in the Nov. 6, 2007 interrogation. The descriptions that were the basis for the criminal charges were made on three occasions during the Massei court trial and in each of the relevant appeal documents. The repetition of the accounts was the basis for the aggravating circumstance of "continuing" and the allegation that Knox had made the impugned statements against the police and Mignini for the purpose of covering up her alleged crime of calunnia against Lumumba was the basis for the aggravating circumstance of "aggravated". If an accused is found guilty including with aggravating circumstances, they are liable to additional prison time.

Knox did not explicitly claim that the police or Mignini had violated any particular Italian law, but Mignini had her statements referred from the court records to his office for prosecution, and an Italian prosecutor found four violations, with three aggravating circumstances, implicit in her statements. The case was tried before the Boninsegna court in Florence. Knox was acquitted of calunnia by the Boninsegna court because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of the interrogation did not proceed as Knox had stated and her defense rights had been clearly violated during the interrogation. The prosecution did not appeal the Boninsegna judgment and thus the acquittal was final and definitive.

In the ECHR judgment of Knox v. Italy, the ECHR pointed out that Knox's defense lawyer had asked the Massei court to refer her statements to a prosecutor for consideration of criminal charges against the police. The Massei court refused this defense request, although it had agreed to Mignini's request to have Knox's court statements forwarded to his office for prosecution against her for calunnia. The ECHR considered this one of many elements in their finding that Italy had violated Knox's rights under Convention Article 3, prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, procedural branch. That provision of ECHR case-law requires that a state conduct an independent and effective investigation of a credible allegation of a substantive violation of Article 3.

Last edited by Numbers; 14th March 2019 at 10:00 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 11:46 AM   #3309
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post

BTW - the separation strategy worked.
But did it really make any difference to the outcome? M/B mentions this in the passing when referring to Raffaele "....- whose trial position is inextricably bound to Knox’s -....". There's nothing that I can see that the strategy made any difference. I get the impression that the decision to acquit was made months in advance anyway.

Hoots
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 12:26 PM   #3310
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
I have always believed that Mignini and the police used defamation lawsuits as an act of intimidation. It's noteworthy that Lumumba accused the police of far worse about his treatment in custody than Knox did of hers but he was never sued by them as Knox was. It's also interesting that he completely changed his story of being hit, punched, kicked, and threatened to being treated 'well' and saying he didn't understand Knox's claim of mistreatment. One way or the other, he was lying. I have to wonder if he feared being sued.
The PGP have long falsely claimed that Knox's lawyers admitted she had never been hit. What they actually did say was that they never said she was hit. I have to wonder if this was deliberate because they knew that they could also be sued by the police for defamation.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 12:38 PM   #3311
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,777
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I have always believed that Mignini and the police used defamation lawsuits as an act of intimidation. It's noteworthy that Lumumba accused the police of far worse about his treatment in custody than Knox did of hers but he was never sued by them as Knox was. It's also interesting that he completely changed his story of being hit, punched, kicked, and threatened to being treated 'well' and saying he didn't understand Knox's claim of mistreatment. One way or the other, he was lying. I have to wonder if he feared being sued.
The PGP have long falsely claimed that Knox's lawyers admitted she had never been hit. What they actually did say was that they never said she was hit. I have to wonder if this was deliberate because they knew that they could also be sued by the police for defamation.
Was there any confirmation or information that Lumumba was mistreated besides an article in the Daily Mail?

The defense lawyers can't claim Amanda was hit based on their observations, only that she claims she was hit. There have been cases before the ECHR in which a defense lawyer observed the bruises or other injury on a person who claimed to have been mistreated by police soon after the mistreatment apparently took place.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 01:06 PM   #3312
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,931
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
But did it really make any difference to the outcome? M/B mentions this in the passing when referring to Raffaele "....- whose trial position is inextricably bound to Knox’s -....". There's nothing that I can see that the strategy made any difference. I get the impression that the decision to acquit was made months in advance anyway.

Hoots
Strictly speaking, S's trial position WAS bound to K's position, esp. since the Hellmann trial.

S's separation strategy was part of **the appeal** to the 2015 Cassazione.

That's all I got.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 01:43 PM   #3313
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Was there any confirmation or information that Lumumba was mistreated besides an article in the Daily Mail?
No. This is what he is quoted as saying just a couple days after his release. As in Amanda's case, the only witnesses would have been those who had an interest is claiming it never happened. Once again, the police failed to record the interrogation even though he was officially a suspect at the time.

Quote:
The defense lawyers can't claim Amanda was hit based on their observations, only that she claims she was hit. There have been cases before the ECHR in which a defense lawyer observed the bruises or other injury on a person who claimed to have been mistreated by police soon after the mistreatment apparently took place.
Exactly. As the lawyers did not see any physical evidence of mistreatment they could not say she had been hit but they certainly never said she had not been hit as the PGP have claimed.

Quote:
Her lawyer Luciano Ghirga rejected the claims that she was ever hit by police back in 2008, stating, “We never said she was hit,”
https://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/ama...case_is_wrong/

Quote:
Her own lawyers confirmed she was not hit
TJMK Main Posters, Oct 3, 2016
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 02:50 PM   #3314
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,754
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
.....
There is no question Raffaele was denied a lawyer as the matter came up during the Matteini pre-trial hearing when Mignini was asked to produce the required petition that would have legally allowed Mignini to deny him access. He couldn't produce the petition, but it proves Raffaele was indeed denied one.

Another question from the beginning: Amanda may have been something of a naive space cadet, but Raffaele's father was a doctor. He surely knew plenty about Italian law and governmental procedures, and if he's like most doctors he had a lawyer on retainer. Why didn't Dad send the cavalry?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:30 PM   #3315
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,777
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Another question from the beginning: Amanda may have been something of a naive space cadet, but Raffaele's father was a doctor. He surely knew plenty about Italian law and governmental procedures, and if he's like most doctors he had a lawyer on retainer. Why didn't Dad send the cavalry?
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were held incommunicado after their arrests on Nov. 6 until the arrest hearings on Nov. 8, in accordance with Mignini's instructions. That means that during that period they were unable to speak to anyone except for the police or prison guards, and no lawyer was allowed to communicate with them during that period. Their cell phones were seized by the police.

However, the police apparently did notify Raffaele's father of Raffaele's arrest and the US embassy in Rome of Amanda's arrest. Lawyers selected by their respective families were at the arrest hearings but were apparently not afforded time to review the cases at length with the accused. To explain what she understood to have happened during the interrogation, Amanda wrote by hand two letters in English to her lawyer on Nov. 9. These are mentioned in the ECHR Communication to Italy for Knox v. Italy. These letters may be viewed at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statem...on-intercepts/
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 04:55 PM   #3316
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,931
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Another question from the beginning: Amanda may have been something of a naive space cadet, but Raffaele's father was a doctor. He surely knew plenty about Italian law and governmental procedures, and if he's like most doctors he had a lawyer on retainer. Why didn't Dad send the cavalry?
Dad **did** send the calvary. But it wasn't until Bongiorno got onto the scene as Raffaele's lawyer that they managed to move the needle judicially, culminating in the 2011 provisional acquittal.

Yet what could a lone urologist do, really, compared with a judiciary, some of whom lined up behind Mignini and Galati, no matter what.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 14th March 2019 at 05:06 PM.
Bill Williams is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 06:26 PM   #3317
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Dad did send in the cavalry: himself and his brother when they proved the police couldn't correctly identify the shoes that made the bloody prints. Inept idiots couldn't solve a crime if it happened right in front of them.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 12:04 PM   #3318
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
There's a PGP on another site claiming there was a bleach cleanup in the cottage and that Lumumba fired Knox for coming on to customers! Another one is claiming that Knox only took one course at the U for Foreigners and that it was just a "cover" for her real agenda: drinking and sex. Sometimes I think people should have to pass an IQ test above 100 before being allowed to post.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 01:06 PM   #3319
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,931
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There's a PGP on another site claiming there was a bleach cleanup in the cottage and that Lumumba fired Knox for coming on to customers! Another one is claiming that Knox only took one course at the U for Foreigners and that it was just a "cover" for her real agenda: drinking and sex. Sometimes I think people should have to pass an IQ test above 100 before being allowed to post.
Years ago, I put a list together of 13 things which guilters claim which even the 2010 Massei report debunks. The claims in your post Stacyhs, made by others, were standard fare 9 years ago **before** the text of the Massei report was released and translated.

Whoever this guilter-nutter is, they're about a decade behind the times.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 01:52 PM   #3320
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Years ago, I put a list together of 13 things which guilters claim which even the 2010 Massei report debunks. The claims in your post Stacyhs, made by others, were standard fare 9 years ago **before** the text of the Massei report was released and translated.

Whoever this guilter-nutter is, they're about a decade behind the times.
There are two of them. One is definitely stuck in 2008-2009 and the other, frankly, has a personal vendetta against Knox.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 05:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.