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

Closed Thread
Old 9th November 2017, 07:05 PM   #3841
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,924
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
So the point of your post is that "some supporters" expressed a view about the 10-year memorial to her friend about which you agreed.

Fair enough.

Well......

1) The phrase used was "even some of her supporters". That word "even" is important in this context (i.e. "you'd expect her enemies to be critical of her writing this piece, but even some of her supporters were critical of it too")

2) The website upon which Knox wrote that piece appears to accept all comments (other than clear obscenities etc).

3) Quite how anyone was able to determine whether the critical comments were written by "supporters" of Knox or not is beyond me. Especially as practically all comments were from unverified contributors. Perhaps Briars was (easily) fooled by the rather crass impersonation of "Dr David Anderson" from someone who patently was not actually him. In fact, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the negative comments below Knox's piece have been submitted by long-standing pro-guilt commentators.

4) The very use of the rather loaded word "supporter" is interesting in and of itself (as a reminder, one can hold a belief a) that Knox/Sollecito never ought to have been convicted of anything related to the murder, or b) that neither Knox nor Sollecito probably had anything whatsoever to do with the murder, or c) in sorrow for the way they and their families have been unfairly dragged through the inept Italian judicial system, without being a supporter per se).

Other than that, though................................
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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 07:08 PM   #3842
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly. The overwhelming majority of murders are committed by one person, acting alone. And the exceptions which prove the rule are almost all the work of either a) gangs, committing gangland "hits"; b) personality cults, where there is a single autocratic cult leader who is quasi-worshipped by followers, and who "brainwashes" his/her followers into doing his/her bidding; c) 2-person conspiracies where both people have developed high trust levels in each other on over many years of very close friendship and have egged each other on to more and more extreme behaviours (and multiple prior joint criminal acts building up towards murder); or d) 2-person conspiracies in which the first person has established a high level psychological control over the second, with the second usually also becoming dependent upon the first for approval (in most instances, these are the classic "killer (male-female) couples" in which one of the couple - usually, but not always, the male - co-opts the second over a period of many years.

The idea of satanic cults conjuring up some sort of group agreement to embark on a series of murders is as ridiculous as it is vanishingly rare. But among a certain breed of investigators and judicial figures - almost always those with strong adherence to mainstream religions and with a suspicion of "dark arts" verging on full-on paranoia - it appears all too easy to leap to those sorts of conclusions. It happened here in the UK in (IIRC) the 1990s, when the protection department of a local authority somewhere in Northern England convinced itself that a whole number of children were being systematically abused by a group of their parents in some sort of satanic ritual: the police were called in, and many parents had their children taken away from them. It turned out subsequently that nothing of the sort had ever taken place.
And it's pretty clear to any disinterested observer that Mignini was engaging in precisely this sort of religious paranoic behaviour when he pronounced on his satanic conspiracy theory in the MoF case. The evidence clearly suggests that these murders were very probably carried out by a single perpetrator with either grand narcissism or some form of mental illness such as paranoid schizophrenia, or (just possibly) by two people who were in a very close relationship and who acted in conspiracy with each other.

Furthermore, one cannot but suggest that Mignini's paranoic theories on the MoF case might feasibly have informed his approach to the Kercher murder. So yes, a direct relevance to our case.
The same thing happened here; the McMartin Daycare case in 1983. A mother, later diagnosed with acute paranoid schizophrenia and alcoholism, accused the grandson, Ray Buckey, of a pre-school/daycare of sodomizing her son. From there it morphed into alleged satanic cult practices and child abuse charges leveled against the owners and teachers. At a cost of $15 million dollars, the longest trial in US history resulted in zero convictions. It was later revealed that the prosecutors had withheld information, including the original complainant's mental health history and that her son had not originally identified Ray Buckey. The videos of the children's interviews showed them being led by police to give the answers they wanted despite the children's original denials of abuse.
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 9th November 2017, 07:23 PM   #3843
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,506
Monica Napoleoni is going to trial. The google translation is difficult to make sense of, but this is in relation to the allegations she abused her office to harass her ex-husband and the court psychologist who ruled against her in her child custody case:

Quote:
Returned to trial Monica Napoleoni, 54, former head of the murders section of the Perugia mobile team investigated in 2013, accused of using his official public power to initiate arbitrary investigations of a psychologist appointed by the tribunal within a personal controversy between her and her ex-husband.

More than 10 months in the classroom The commissar substitute involved in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher is held responsible by the public prosecutor Giuseppe Petrazzini for abusive access to computer systems, defamation, mistreatment of others, aggravated threats and damages . Against the police, suspended from the service during the first months of 2013, together with colleagues Lorena Zugarini (54) and Stefania Squarta (51), gup Valerio D'Andria ordered the referral: the trial will begin on 22 May 2018 before first district court of Perugia.

The decree which provides for the judgment of D'Andria - is written in the decree that provides the judgment - declared "unusable" the "clues" collected after the expiry of the deadline for preliminary investigations. 'With reference to the plea of invalidity - as explained in the measure - the court notes that it is not persuasive since all the complaints are complete with sufficient references to the reconstruction of the incidents and the legal classification of the same.' Second Napoleon and Zugarini accused, both of whom were removed from the mobile team, would instigate two people to infiltrate a psychologist's car, buckle his car tires, and leave them offensive at the office.

Defense The defendants - seven in all the judges, including three carabinieri - are defended by lawyers Nicola Di Mario, Giosuè Bruno Naso, Giovanni Spina, Alessandro Bacchi, Guido Rondoni, Alessandro Di Baia, Alessandro Ciglioni and Francesco Maresca. Civic parties are assisted by Valeriano Tascini and Carla Pantosti. According to Di Mario, the lawyer of Napoleon and Zugarini who has advanced the exclusion of uselessness of most of the investigative acts, "the content of the ordinance is inconceivable." The defender explains: "The results of the scientific investigation by the police on the alleged defamation and damage, but also the analysis of the telephone traffic referring to those
which are considered material authors. The infallibility of the controversies will be fully acknowledged in the debate phase. The content of the telephone tapping takes into account Monica Napoleoni's total extraneousity to the alleged facts. Moreover, the gip rejected the request to apply the suspension from service to him, highlighting, at the end of the guarantee interrogation, that there were no serious indications of an offense against him.
http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/perug...ata-a-giudizio
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 9th November 2017, 09:36 PM   #3844
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Monica Napoleoni is going to trial. The google translation is difficult to make sense of, but this is in relation to the allegations she abused her office to harass her ex-husband and the court psychologist who ruled against her in her child custody case:


http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/perug...ata-a-giudizio
Here's the headline:

Perugia, a processo la poliziotta di Amanda Knox: Monica Napoleoni rinviata a giudizio

Minacce e danneggiamenti, il gup però annulla gli elementi raccolti quando i termini delle indagini erano ormai scaduti


Google translation, with the assistance of Collins Reverso and me:

Perugia: the legal proceedings of Amanda Knox's policewoman: Monica Napoleon indicted {referred to trial}

Threats and damages, however, the gup* discards the elements {of evidence?} collected when the time limits of the investigation were exceeded

The article is dated: 26 giugno [June] 2017

* preliminary hearing judge

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2017 at 09:38 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 9th November 2017, 09:47 PM   #3845
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's the headline:

Perugia, a processo la poliziotta di Amanda Knox: Monica Napoleoni rinviata a giudizio

Minacce e danneggiamenti, il gup però annulla gli elementi raccolti quando i termini delle indagini erano ormai scaduti


Google translation, with the assistance of Collins Reverso and me:

Perugia: the legal proceedings of Amanda Knox's policewoman: Monica Napoleon indicted {referred to trial}

Threats and damages, however, the gup* discards the elements {of evidence?} collected when the time limits of the investigation were exceeded

The article is dated: 26 giugno [June] 2017

* preliminary hearing judge
Looking at the text of the article, there are some bloopers in the Google translation that make it difficult to understand. But here is one correction:

"Defense The defendants - seven in all the judges, including three carabinieri -"
The original Italian is:
"Gli imputati – sette in tutto quelli a giudizio, compresi tre carabinieri -"

should be translated:

"The defendants - seven in all were in court, including three carabinieri -"

So, was this an alleged conspiracy by some members of the police? And here we are constantly told by the PGP that the police never do any wrong, and certainly that the police would never act together to commit a crime.
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 9th November 2017, 09:59 PM   #3846
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Monica Napoleoni is going to trial. The google translation is difficult to make sense of, but this is in relation to the allegations she abused her office to harass her ex-husband and the court psychologist who ruled against her in her child custody case:


http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/perug...ata-a-giudizio
BTW, this interesting article that Stacyhs found has a link to a previous article, dated 6 April 2016, that is also very interesting. Here's its headline:

"Amanda Knox assolta da calunnie a polizia: notte drammatica nella questura di Perugia

Per il giudice di Firenze nessun reato ma ‘diritti negati’, ‘omissioni’ e ‘verbali inaffidabili’. ‘Perché Lumumba? Per uscire dal tormento’"

Source: http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/mered...interrogatorio

Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox acquitted of calunnia [false accusation] against the police: a dramatic night in the police station of Perugia

For the judge of Florence there was no offense but 'denied rights', 'omissions' and 'unreliable minutes [records of the interrogation]'. 'Why Lumumba? To get out of torment '
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 9th November 2017, 10:17 PM   #3847
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
BTW, this interesting article that Stacyhs found has a link to a previous article, dated 6 April 2016, that is also very interesting. Here's its headline:

"Amanda Knox assolta da calunnie a polizia: notte drammatica nella questura di Perugia

Per il giudice di Firenze nessun reato ma ‘diritti negati’, ‘omissioni’ e ‘verbali inaffidabili’. ‘Perché Lumumba? Per uscire dal tormento’"

Source: http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/mered...interrogatorio

Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox acquitted of calunnia [false accusation] against the police: a dramatic night in the police station of Perugia

For the judge of Florence there was no offense but 'denied rights', 'omissions' and 'unreliable minutes [records of the interrogation]'. 'Why Lumumba? To get out of torment '
Here's the first paragraph of the article:

"Il primo racconto di Amanda Knox sull’omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher è «la narrazione confusa di un sogno macabro» piuttosto che «la descrizione di una vicenda davvero accaduta». In questura, la notte tra il 5 e il 6 novembre 2007, la «condizione psicologica» dell’americana era «divenuta per lei un peso davvero insopportabile». «In quel contesto è comprensibile che Amanda, cedendo alla pressione e alla stanchezza, abbia sperato di mettere fine a quella situazione dando agli investigatori ciò che in fondo volevano sentirsi dire: un nome, un assassino». E «poiché Patrick Lumumba era davvero estraneo» al delitto di via della Pergola «lo shock emotivo non poteva essere determinato dall’essere scoperta quanto dall’aver ormai raggiunto il massimo della tensione emotiva». Il processo ad Amanda Knox, prima assolta dall’omicidio e poi dall’accusa di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni agenti che indagavano sul giallo di Perugia, si trasforma in un processo alle tecniche di indagine della polizia. Il tribunale di Firenze attacca i «verbali inaffidabili» della questura, contesta le «scelte inopportune» degli interpreti «appartenenti alla stessa questura di Perugia» e «il metodo apparentemente edulcorato adottato dagli investigatori e dai loro ausiliari» con Amanda, «trattata con fare materno ed amichevole affetto» nonostante gli «elementi indiziari emersi a suo carico»."

Here is a Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox's first narrative about the murder of English student Meredith Kercher is "the confused narrative of a macabre dream" rather than "the description of a story that truly happened." In the police station, the night between November 5 and 6, 2007, the American's 'psychological condition' had become a "really unbearable weight for her." "In that context, it is understandable that Amanda, surrendering to pressure and fatigue, hoped to put an end to that situation by giving investigators what they wanted to say: a name, a killer." And "since Patrick Lumumba was really a stranger" to {that is, fully innocent of} the crime of Pergola Street, "the emotional shock could not be determined by {her fear of} being discovered, but by having reached the maximum of emotional tension." The trial of Amanda Knox, first finally acquitted for the murder and then facing a criminal accusation of calunnia {false accusation} against some police agents who investigated the sensational crime of Perugia, turns into a trial of the police investigation techniques. The Florence court attacks the "unreliable minutes [interrogation records]" of the police, disputes the "unreasonable choices" of the interpreter "belonging to the same police station in Perugia," and "the seemingly [supposedly] sweetened method adopted by investigators and their auxiliaries" with Amanda, "who was treated with maternal and friendly affection" despite the {alleged} "circumstantial evidence that emerged against her".

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2017 at 10:19 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 9th November 2017, 10:23 PM   #3848
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Here's the second paragraph of the article on the acquittal of Amanda Knox for calunnia against the police:

Diritti negati Scrive il giudice Giampaolo Boninsegna nelle motivazioni della sentenza: «In un contesto professionale del genere probabilmente non ci si è resi conto che l’unico attento approccio richiesto verso la Knox, anzi, imposto, doveva essere quello di informare l’indagata dei suoi diritti di difesa, dichiarati inviolabili, non a caso, dalla nostra Costituzione. Ciò per l’evidente e scolastico motivo che si trattava di soggetto che doveva essere posto nelle condizioni di difendere la propria libertà personale a fronte del potere autoritativo dello Stato». Ancora: «La dignità personale e i diritti fondamentali di un soggetto al cospetto dell’autorità che procede nei suoi confronti vanno tutelati proprio al fine di impedire prevaricazioni dell’autorità medesima, magari con modalità oblique e surrettizie. E’ questo infatti lo scopo e lo spirito delle regole processuali vigenti, sin dalle prime battute delle indagini. Non trattamenti amichevoli, amorevoli o materni, dunque, erano dovuti né consentiti, ma solo il rispetto dei diritti strumentali di difesa. Era richiesto solo il rispetto delle regole che governano le indagini ma tali limiti sono stati travalicati determinando contaminazioni delle procedure che hanno portato alla loro invalidità».

Google translation:

Denial of Rights The judge Giampaolo Boninsegna writes in the grounds of the judgment: "In a professional context of this kind, it was probably not realized that the only careful approach required to Knox was, indeed, imposed, to inform the investigation of the his defense rights, declared inviolable, not by chance, by our constitution. This is because of the obvious and scholastic reason that it was a subject that was to be placed in the condition of defending one's own liberty in the face of the authoritarian power of the state. " Furthermore: "The personal dignity and fundamental rights of a person before the authority proceeding against him must be safeguarded precisely in order to prevent the perversion of the authority itself, perhaps by oblique and surreptitious ways. This is in fact the purpose and spirit of the rules of procedure in force since the beginning of the investigation. No friendly, loving or maternal treatments, therefore, were due or permitted, but only the respect of the instrumental rights of defense. Only the respect of the rules governing the investigation was required, but such limitations have been overcome [exceeded], resulting in contamination of the procedures leading to their invalidity. "

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2017 at 11:20 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 9th November 2017, 11:14 PM   #3849
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,745
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well......

1) The phrase used was "even some of her supporters". That word "even" is important in this context (i.e. "you'd expect her enemies to be critical of her writing this piece, but even some of her supporters were critical of it too")

2) The website upon which Knox wrote that piece appears to accept all comments (other than clear obscenities etc).

3) Quite how anyone was able to determine whether the critical comments were written by "supporters" of Knox or not is beyond me. Especially as practically all comments were from unverified contributors. Perhaps Briars was (easily) fooled by the rather crass impersonation of "Dr David Anderson" from someone who patently was not actually him. In fact, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the negative comments below Knox's piece have been submitted by long-standing pro-guilt commentators.

4) The very use of the rather loaded word "supporter" is interesting in and of itself (as a reminder, one can hold a belief a) that Knox/Sollecito never ought to have been convicted of anything related to the murder, or b) that neither Knox nor Sollecito probably had anything whatsoever to do with the murder, or c) in sorrow for the way they and their families have been unfairly dragged through the inept Italian judicial system, without being a supporter per se).

Other than that, though................................
You're not going to cut Briars a break, are you?

I'd not been aware that Briars had been referring to the comments' section. Other than that, what do any of the comments (pro or con) have to do with anything, other than a wish by some to trash some random hippy Seattleite who'd been falsely accused a decade ago, and was finally exonerated by the country's highest court 2 1/2 years ago? Completely ignoring Raffaele, and perhaps even providing cover for Rudy Guede who is walking the streets as we type)?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 9th November 2017 at 11:23 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 11:30 PM   #3850
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's the first paragraph of the article:

"Il primo racconto di Amanda Knox sull’omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher è «la narrazione confusa di un sogno macabro» piuttosto che «la descrizione di una vicenda davvero accaduta». In questura, la notte tra il 5 e il 6 novembre 2007, la «condizione psicologica» dell’americana era «divenuta per lei un peso davvero insopportabile». «In quel contesto è comprensibile che Amanda, cedendo alla pressione e alla stanchezza, abbia sperato di mettere fine a quella situazione dando agli investigatori ciò che in fondo volevano sentirsi dire: un nome, un assassino». E «poiché Patrick Lumumba era davvero estraneo» al delitto di via della Pergola «lo shock emotivo non poteva essere determinato dall’essere scoperta quanto dall’aver ormai raggiunto il massimo della tensione emotiva». Il processo ad Amanda Knox, prima assolta dall’omicidio e poi dall’accusa di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni agenti che indagavano sul giallo di Perugia, si trasforma in un processo alle tecniche di indagine della polizia. Il tribunale di Firenze attacca i «verbali inaffidabili» della questura, contesta le «scelte inopportune» degli interpreti «appartenenti alla stessa questura di Perugia» e «il metodo apparentemente edulcorato adottato dagli investigatori e dai loro ausiliari» con Amanda, «trattata con fare materno ed amichevole affetto» nonostante gli «elementi indiziari emersi a suo carico»."

Here is a Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox's first narrative about the murder of English student Meredith Kercher is "the confused narrative of a macabre dream" rather than "the description of a story that truly happened." In the police station, the night between November 5 and 6, 2007, the American's 'psychological condition' had become a "really unbearable weight for her." "In that context, it is understandable that Amanda, surrendering to pressure and fatigue, hoped to put an end to that situation by giving investigators what they wanted to say: a name, a killer." And "since Patrick Lumumba was really a stranger" to {that is, fully innocent of} the crime of Pergola Street, "the emotional shock could not be determined by {her fear of} being discovered, but by having reached the maximum of emotional tension." The trial of Amanda Knox, first finally acquitted for the murder and then facing a criminal accusation of calunnia {false accusation} against some police agents who investigated the sensational crime of Perugia, turns into a trial of the police investigation techniques. The Florence court attacks the "unreliable minutes [interrogation records]" of the police, disputes the "unreasonable choices" of the interpreter "belonging to the same police station in Perugia," and "the seemingly [supposedly] sweetened method adopted by investigators and their auxiliaries" with Amanda, "who was treated with maternal and friendly affection" despite the {alleged} "circumstantial evidence that emerged against her".
This is extremely similar, almost verbatim, to what Hellmann wrote in his 2011 acquittal regarding the Lumumba calunnia...which to me sounded a hell of a lot more like reasons for acquittal than conviction.
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 9th November 2017, 11:47 PM   #3851
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well......

1) The phrase used was "even some of her supporters". That word "even" is important in this context (i.e. "you'd expect her enemies to be critical of her writing this piece, but even some of her supporters were critical of it too")

2) The website upon which Knox wrote that piece appears to accept all comments (other than clear obscenities etc).

3) Quite how anyone was able to determine whether the critical comments were written by "supporters" of Knox or not is beyond me. Especially as practically all comments were from unverified contributors. Perhaps Briars was (easily) fooled by the rather crass impersonation of "Dr David Anderson" from someone who patently was not actually him. In fact, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the negative comments below Knox's piece have been submitted by long-standing pro-guilt commentators.

4) The very use of the rather loaded word "supporter" is interesting in and of itself (as a reminder, one can hold a belief a) that Knox/Sollecito never ought to have been convicted of anything related to the murder, or b) that neither Knox nor Sollecito probably had anything whatsoever to do with the murder, or c) in sorrow for the way they and their families have been unfairly dragged through the inept Italian judicial system, without being a supporter per se).

Other than that, though................................
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You're not going to cut Briars a break, are you?

I'd not been aware that Briars had been referring to the comments' section. Other than that, what do any of the comments (pro or con) have to do with anything, other than a wish by some to trash some random hippy Seattleite who'd been falsely accused a decade ago, and was finally exonerated by the country's highest court 2 1/2 years ago? Completely ignoring Raffaele, and perhaps even providing cover for Rudy Guede who is walking the streets as we type)?
I had to look at the comments based on this.

Obviously several PGP have chosen to misrepresent their identities, using for their unverified screen names the names of one or more well-known PIP. This misrepresentation is a part of the intellectual dishonesty of the PGP.

Such misrepresentations of their identities are typical of the unethical PGP, who have no valid arguments, but spend their time amusing themselves by posting malicious comments about a young woman who was falsely accused of murder and rape by a self-publicizing conspiracy-theorist prosecutor ten years ago, but has been definitively acquitted of those charges, as well as definitively acquitted of the charge of calunnia (false accusation) against the police.

Amanda Knox's human rights were violated by the Italian police, prosecutors, and some courts, and the PGP by their malicious attacks and misrepresentations show themselves to be opponents of human rights.

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2017 at 11:51 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 10th November 2017, 12:27 AM   #3852
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Here are some comments by "Corrado" about the 6 April 2016 article about Amanda Knox being acquitted of calunnia against the police.

1. Bisogna aggiungere alcuni particolari importanti: prima di tutto, la videoregistrazione dell’interrogatorio, che venne fatta in quanto obbligatoria per legge, è stata sempre tenuta nascosta, e probabilmente non verrà mai fuori: è sufficiente questo particolare per distruggere la versione della polizia e confermare quella di Amanda Knox.

Google translation:

We need to add some important details: first of all, the video recording of the interrogation, which was made as mandatory by law, has always been kept hidden, and will probably never come out: this is enough to destroy the police version and confirm that of Amanda Knox.

2. Un secondo particolare importante è la ritrattazione scritta da Amanda poche ore dopo la fine dell’interrogatorio; fu una ritrattazione spontanea perché fatta prima di consultarsi con gli avvocati. In questa lettera, diretta allo stesso staff di investigatori che avevano assistito all’interrogatorio, cioè a persone che conoscevano benissimo la verità su come l’interrogatorio era stato condotto e che quindi non potevano essere ingannate a riguardo, Amanda dice di aver fatto il nome di Lumumba a causa delle pressioni e delle minacce degli inquirenti, che l’avevano terrorizzata e suggestionata inducendo in lei dubbi e falsi ricordi. E avverte la polizia di non tener conto di quanto detto contro Lumumba, in quanto le sue parole non erano venute da lei ma dalla sua mente confusa dalle violenze fisiche e verbali usate contro di lei. La ritrattazione fu ripetuta, sempre per iscritto, in un secondo memoriale scritto il giorno dopo.

Google translation with my help:

Another important detail is the retraction written by Amanda a few hours after the end of the interrogation; it was a spontaneous retraction because it was done before consulting with lawyers. In this letter, directed to the same staff of investigators who had taken part in the interrogation, that is, to people who knew the truth about how the interrogation had been conducted and could not therefore be deceived, Amanda said that she had named Lumumba because of the pressures and threats of the inquisitors, who had frightened her and suggested it, causing doubts and false memories in her. She warns the police not to take account of what she said against Lumumba, as her words did not come from her willingly but from her mind confused by the physical and verbal violence that had been used against her. The retraction was repeated, again in writing, in a second memorial written the following day.

3. La polizia non ha mai ammesso ufficialmente di aver fatto la registrazione, ma è estremamente probabile che l’abbia fatta dato che è obbligatoria per legge e non c’era motivo per non farla, dato che quell’interrogatorio aveva agli occhi degli investigatori un’importanza cruciale. Quando nel corso dell’interrogatorio il clima si riscaldò e Amanda venne sempre più maltrattata, la procura decise di secretare la registrazione (e forse addirittura di distruggerla): questa mi sembra la versione più ragionevole dei fatti. E’ vero che Amanda non ha mai detto di essere stata registrata, ma può darsi che la registrazione sia stata presa a sua insaputa (con una telecamera nascosta). Secondo Mignini la videoregistrazione non fu fatta perché non c’era più nastro e la procura non aveva denaro a sufficienza per procurarsene dell’altro. La motivazione di Mignini è assolutamente ridicola, perché la Procura di Perugia non era affatto povera e infatti poco dopo spese la somma enorme di 180 mila euro per costruire un video (da mostrare al processo per suggestionare i giurati) che raffigurava, con cartoni animati, lo scenario del delitto secondo le fantasie dell’accusa. Inoltre la spesa per una videoregistrazione è molto contenuta e alla portata di qualunque Procura. Un’altra versione (sempre fornita dalla Procura ma diversa dalla versione di Mignini) afferma che la registrazione non fu fatta perché Amanda era interrogata come persona informata dei fatti, e non come sospetta, e quindi la registrazione non era obbligatoria. Ma anche questa versione è ridicola, perché in realtà la ragazza fu considerata persona sospetta già nei primissimi giorni di novembre, secondo l’ammissione pubblica (che si trova anche su youtube) dello stesso vicecapo della polizia romana Edgardo Giobbi, e dunque già prima dell’ interrogatorio del 5-6 novembre. Inoltre, si vede subito che quest’ interrogatorio non aveva niente in comune con i colloqui che si svolgono tra la polizia e le persone informate sui fatti. Fu condotto di notte, e coinvolse almeno dodici poliziotti, alcuni di loro chiamati apposta da Roma ed esperti nella tecnica di interrogatorio Reid, che si usa unicamente con le persone fortemente sospette e ha lo scopo di suggestionare l’inquisito fino a fargli dire ciò che gli investigatori vogliono sentirsi dire. Concludendo, possiamo dire con sicurezza che o la registrazione c’è stata e poi fu nascosta (o distrutta) e questa mi sembra la cosa più probabile, oppure, come dice lei signor BourgeoisViews, non venne fatta perché fin dall’inizio si aveva l’intenzione di trattare Amanda in modo violento e illegale. Si può credere all’una o all’altra possibilità, ma in entrambi i casi una cosa è certissima: la registrazione nessuno l’ha mai vista, nè in tribunale nè alla TV, nonostante la legge la richieda, e questa mancanza è una prova schiacciante che la polizia ha mentito e che Amanda Knox ha detto la verità.

Google translation with my help:

The police have never officially admitted to having made a recording, but it is extremely likely that they did so because it was compulsory by law and there was no reason not to do so, since that interrogation had in the eyes of investigators a crucial importance. When the climate warmed up during the interrogation and Amanda was increasingly ill-treated, the prosecutor decided to hide the recording (and perhaps even to destroy it): this seems to me to be the most reasonable version of the facts. It is true that Amanda has never said it has been recorded, but it may be that the recording has been taken without her knowing it (with a hidden camera). According to Mignini, video recording was not done because there was no tape and the prosecutor did not have enough money to get any. Mignini's motivation is absolutely ridiculous, for the Procuratore di Perugia was not poor at all and in fact shortly afterwards spent the huge sum of 180 thousand euros to create a video (to show at the trial for influencing the jurors) depicting, with cartoons, the scenario of the crime according to the fantasy of the charge. In addition, the cost of video recording is very small and well within the reach of any Prosecutor. Another version (always provided by the Prosecution but different from the Mignini version) claims that the recording was not made because Amanda was questioned as a witness [a person informed of the facts], and not as a suspect, and therefore making a recording was not compulsory. But this version is ridiculous, because in reality the girl was considered a suspect already in the early days of November, according to the public admission {which was in his court testimony} (which is also on youtube) of the same deputy head of the Roman police Edgardo Giobbi, and therefore she was a suspect before interrogation of 5-6 November. Moreover, it is immediately apparent that this interrogation had nothing in common with the interviews conducted between the police and the witnesses [people informed about the facts]. It was conducted at night, involving at least twelve police officers, some of them called from Rome and experts in Reid's interrogation technique, which is used solely with suspects and is intended to suggest to the person under investigation to induce him to say what the investigators want to hear. To conclude, we can safely say that either the recording was there and then it was hidden (or destroyed) and this seems to me the most likely thing, or, as Mr BourgeoisViews {another commenter} states, it was not done because from the beginning it was the intention to treat Amanda violently and illegally. One can believe one or the other possibility, but in both cases one thing is very certain: no one has ever seen it, either in court or on TV, even though the law requires it, and this lack is overwhelming evidence that the police lied and Amanda Knox said the truth.
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 10th November 2017, 12:37 AM   #3853
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is extremely similar, almost verbatim, to what Hellmann wrote in his 2011 acquittal regarding the Lumumba calunnia...which to me sounded a hell of a lot more like reasons for acquittal than conviction.
Which is why: 1. The Hellmann court verdict of guilt for the charge of calunnia against Lumumba was arbitrary; 2. The ECHR will have one more reason, if it wants to list them all, to find that Amanda's conviction for calunnia was unfair under the Convention and allow her to request a retrial.

Arbitrary judgments of conviction are always considered unfair by the ECHR.
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 10th November 2017, 11:00 PM   #3854
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,697
Mod InfoThis thread has been closed because it is too large and making the forum the slow.

The discussion continues here.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin 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
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 07:46 PM.
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.