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

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


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

Reply
Old 15th June 2019, 05:05 PM   #161
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,175
What will wild and crazzzzzzy Amanda do next!

Pay no attention to Meredith's blood dripping off Rudy's hands.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 05:27 PM   #162
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,314
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This Krissy G needs to get her facts straight. She wrote in the comments section on TJMK:
<..... sinister deletia .....>
It must be nice to be on TJMK and be able to write whatever tripe comes into one's head without fear of being challenged as to its veracity. But here on ISF, she would be. Perhaps that's why 'KrissyG' never posts here?
It would be good for KrissyG to post here once in a while.

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

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

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

Last edited by Bill Williams; 15th June 2019 at 05:33 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 05:30 PM   #163
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It would be good for KrissyG to post here once in a while.

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

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

You can't teach that.
At least Vixen would have someone to agree with her here, a compadre so to speak. They seem remarkably in sync. I've even seen them use very similar, if not identical, arguments.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 08:03 PM   #164
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,319
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
At least Vixen would have someone to agree with her here, a compadre so to speak. They seem remarkably in sync. I've even seen them use very similar, if not identical, arguments.
They also share an obsessive hatred of Amanda that borders on psychotic. It's an incredibly bizarre behavior when you consider it's motivated by the murder of a complete stranger almost twelve years ago.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 08:28 PM   #165
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
Some years ago, a guilter asked me for "counterexamples" in the ECHR's application of its case-law relevant to the case Knox v. Italy, for example, the principles of case-law related to judging alleged violations of Convention Article 6.1 with Article 6.3c. There are, of course, no real counterexamples allowed by the ECHR's method of jurisprudence, which is based upon strict precedence. The ECHR refines, enhances, or redefines case-law so that counterexamples for the same or highly similar facts do not occur.

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

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

Last edited by Numbers; 15th June 2019 at 10:22 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 02:52 AM   #166
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
They also share an obsessive hatred of Amanda that borders on psychotic. It's an incredibly bizarre behavior when you consider it's motivated by the murder of a complete stranger almost twelve years ago.
It's toxic on YouTube, with pro-guilt videos popping up regularly, although nearly all of the pro-guilt comments are misinformed drivel. Face and body reading is all the rage with the most innocent mannerisms being labelled as proof of guilt. The psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Hoots
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 03:44 AM   #167
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 721
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
It's toxic on YouTube, with pro-guilt videos popping up regularly, although nearly all of the pro-guilt comments are misinformed drivel. Face and body reading is all the rage with the most innocent mannerisms being labelled as proof of guilt. The psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Hoots
This posts raises an interesting point. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and there was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP have to rely so heavily on body language to argue their case. Why not just rely on the evidence.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 04:07 AM   #168
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 721
Originally Posted by toto View Post
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Festival.htm

I suppose the Nigerian bodyguard comment came from the third picture down in this link, but I do not see the relevance of race in the description, and out of interest I do not know how one can tell which African country (of origin possibly , rather than birth) is being represented here. And how can one tell who is paying for this service? I too was rather disturbed by the use of the word "paraphrase" when clearly a misleading impression was created by summarising the CBS item (though I would agree it was a bit snarky).
I am confused. According to some PGP Amanda is a racist which explains why she named Lumumba. If Amanda is so racist, why was she using black bodyguards.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 05:52 AM   #169
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
I am confused. According to some PGP Amanda is a racist which explains why she named Lumumba. If Amanda is so racist, why was she using black bodyguards.
Yup! Lumumba stated that Amanda allegedly fingered him because he was black. On the other hand Amanda must have protected Rudy because he was black since there are no other reasons.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 09:21 AM   #170
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,513
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was told by an insider. The semi-brawl is not in that video. I never said it was.
An insider? My ass. You have no insiders in Italy. NONE.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th June 2019 at 10:20 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 10:20 AM   #171
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,090
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
An insider? My ass. Which is where you pulled that tidbit out of. You have no insiders in Italy. NONE.


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

That's all. So sad.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 11:04 AM   #172
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
It's toxic on YouTube, with pro-guilt videos popping up regularly, although nearly all of the pro-guilt comments are misinformed drivel. Face and body reading is all the rage with the most innocent mannerisms being labelled as proof of guilt. The psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

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

Last edited by Stacyhs; 16th June 2019 at 11:08 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 11:26 AM   #173
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The amount of pure ignorance and misinformation I see posted in the comments section on Knox related articles is mind boggling. Among them, the claim that there was no other suspect than Knox and Sollecito (hello? GUEDE?), that Knox was convicted of "perjury", that Knox was a drug dealer, that Knox was high on cocaine...the list goes on and on. Yet, these people think they know enough about the case to come to a firm decision on her guilt. It scares the crap out of me that these people serve on juries.
The pro-guilt problem is that if the scientific cops had identified the other male traces on the bra-clasp and also tested the sperm evidence they might have got a matching hit and a new lead. I very much doubt if that would have been the case but if they had they could have had far more evidence than they ever did against Raffaele. To say that there was no suspects other than K&S is untrue, they just didn't examine all the possibilities. Selective investigative amnesia methinks.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 11:35 AM   #174
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
The pro-guilt problem is that if the scientific cops had identified the other male traces on the bra-clasp and also tested the sperm evidence they might have got a matching hit and a new lead. I very much doubt if that would have been the case but if they had they could have had far more evidence than they ever did against Raffaele. To say that there was no suspects other than K&S is untrue, they just didn't examine all the possibilities. Selective investigative amnesia methinks.

Hoots
There is NO logical reason that suspected sperm stain was not tested. Incredible incompetence by the police and why a judge refused the defense request is beyond any reasoning. I highly doubt the stain would have matched any of the male DNA found on the bra clasp. I think it would have matched Guede and all the DNA on the clasp was simple transfer contamination. If it weren't then we'd have to accept that all those men had touched MK's bra and I just don't think that was the case. Silenzi's could have been there but that would have meant nothing.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 12:13 PM   #175
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,513
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well what they have (in low single-digit numbers) is fellow obsessive pro-guilt theorists in Italy, who regularly make long journeys round the country in order to agitate and "report" on the case - i.e. to find inventive new ways to observe things through the clouded lens of their obsession in order to put a heavy pro-guilt, anti-Knox/Sollecito spin on the actual facts.

That's all. So sad.
That may be true. But facts and truth are twisted so much in this person's posts that it is just as likely Vixen made it up. It demonstrates so clearly the PGP's obsession of spinning anything that is positive or protective of Amanda negatively.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 03:38 PM   #176
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,090
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is NO logical reason that suspected sperm stain was not tested. Incredible incompetence by the police and why a judge refused the defense request is beyond any reasoning. I highly doubt the stain would have matched any of the male DNA found on the bra clasp. I think it would have matched Guede and all the DNA on the clasp was simple transfer contamination. If it weren't then we'd have to accept that all those men had touched MK's bra and I just don't think that was the case. Silenzi's could have been there but that would have meant nothing.

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

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

I have to say: every time I read Quennell's deluded opinions on the "admired the world over", "outstanding", etc, Italian criminal justice system, it only serves to demonstrate over and over again just how divorced from reality his views (and those of his tiny cadre of acolytes) truly is......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 04:00 PM   #177
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
I agree...and I think Nencini's refusal to test the semen stain may have been influenced by Chieffi's pretty clear indication that he wanted the pair convicted.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 04:24 PM   #178
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox is in Modena as a commercial enterprise. CBS News reports that she has 'her own personal videographer carefully choregraphing' the whole thing. IOW all the eye dabbing, bowed head nonsense and fleeing from the conference hall after just a few minutes are all carefully scripted. She hired a team of Nigerian bodyguards <shurely shome mishtake> and is flanked by Italian plain clothes policemen. This posse makes it look like there is a lot of media attention when in fact the 'scuffles' seem to have been initiated by Christopher Robinson whom an eye witness says launched himself at the journalists who were miffed at being blocked by the Knox posse.

Expect a ker-ching, ker-ching series of shows and books for Knox out of this conference. Even Mom Edda is in on the jolly.
These posts of yours, on this thread, come across as mostly non-sequiturs and often rather childish. I have to wonder if you actually believe Knox murdered her housemate or you're just trolling (which would explain the childishness).
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 08:10 PM   #179
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is NO logical reason that suspected sperm stain was not tested. Incredible incompetence by the police and why a judge refused the defense request is beyond any reasoning. I highly doubt the stain would have matched any of the male DNA found on the bra clasp. I think it would have matched Guede and all the DNA on the clasp was simple transfer contamination. If it weren't then we'd have to accept that all those men had touched MK's bra and I just don't think that was the case. Silenzi's could have been there but that would have meant nothing.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh I strongly suspect that the judge's refusal to mandate the test was intrinsically tied-in with this horrendous (and anachronistic, and unlawful, and anti-judicial) manner in which Italian courtroom judges defer to the position of the prosecutors (who are also in a very real respect their colleagues....). It's this horrible belief that prosecutors are scrupulous "seekers of the truth", that prosecutors have no skin in the game as regards conviction or acquittal, that prosecutors (and their agents) are both expert and of the utmost probity.

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

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

The judges went along with the prosecution, either for the reasons that LondonJohn suggests, or (perhaps less likely?) they were parties in support of the fabrication. Reading the motivation reports of the Massei or Nencini courts, or the Chieffi CSC panel, could lead one to believe that those judges were indeed parties to the fabrication.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2019, 11:07 PM   #180
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,314
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
.The judges went along with the prosecution, either for the reasons that LondonJohn suggests, or (perhaps less likely?) they were parties in support of the fabrication. Reading the motivation reports of the Massei or Nencini courts, or the Chieffi CSC panel, could lead one to believe that those judges were indeed parties to the fabrication.
I don't agree. Reading about this in the 2010 Massei motivations report reveals the most awkward and ludicrous justification for not testing the presumed semen stain, so awkward and contrived that it's difficult to believe he did it on purpose.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 12:12 AM   #181
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,211
One of the depressing things is that what happened in Sollecito's and Knox's case is very similar to what has happened in many wrongful convictions. Tunnel vision by the investigator, they pick on an easy target and ignore evidence pointing to someone else. Confessions are given undue weight often obtained without legal representation. The lack of forensic evidence of interaction between accused and victim is given insufficient weight as exculpatory. Dubious forensic science is used. You could map what happened to Knox onto others such as the Central Park five.

What I find sad is that there are clearly lessons to be learned. Some of these have been learnt in England and Wales (Scotland has significant issues), interview techniques, recording of interviews, forensic science regulation are all attempts to address some of these issues.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 12:35 AM   #182
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
One of the depressing things is that what happened in Sollecito's and Knox's case is very similar to what has happened in many wrongful convictions. Tunnel vision by the investigator, they pick on an easy target and ignore evidence pointing to someone else. Confessions are given undue weight often obtained without legal representation. The lack of forensic evidence of interaction between accused and victim is given insufficient weight as exculpatory. Dubious forensic science is used. You could map what happened to Knox onto others such as the Central Park five.

What I find sad is that there are clearly lessons to be learned. Some of these have been learnt in England and Wales (Scotland has significant issues), interview techniques, recording of interviews, forensic science regulation are all attempts to address some of these issues.
Forensic evidence? We don't need no stinkin' forensic evidence! We got body language and her eyes!
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 12:53 AM   #183
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
I almost feel sorry for poor KrissyG over on TJMK. Her latest unhinged rant masquerading as an 'article' has received all of ONE comment....made by KrissyG.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 10:43 AM   #184
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I believe that the real reason the prosecution did not want the apparent semen stain tested was that they were confident that DNA profiling it would ID Guede. This evidence would contradict Guede's story and make it more difficult to successfully fabricate a case against Knox and Sollecito.
Well Numbers, hmmm! I know you're not entirely in agreement with my theory that the cops knew Rudy was the killer from day one, but your highlighted points seems to come pretty close to agreeing with me. These points indicate a need to maximise a case against K&S and minimise the case against Rudy, I agree with that, but what initiated these tactics if it wasn't a knowledge that Rudy was the killer on the first day? In other words when do you think it become imperative to the cops that Rudy had to be protected?

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 12:36 PM   #185
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
My word!! This still goes on? Vixen is still banging her drum out of sync and demanding the entire orchestra is out of sync not her.
It’s hopeless when someone ignorant of law posts as if he/SHE is knowledgeable. Clearly ignorance is bliss.
Let’s be clear about this. Lower courts find facts (“legal facts” as defined in law and which are not necessary correct or “empirical facts”. The appeal court is stuck with lower court “facts” whether they like them or not (with few exceptions).
What the appeal court does is to trace the logic of going from “fact” to finding. In the final appeal there was a finding of quantum leaps from “fact” to “finding” by the lower courts (Hellman excluded) which were unsound. To argue anything as being a fact because lower found it so, is to misunderstand law completely.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 01:13 PM   #186
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,314
From the NYTimes about the Modena innocence conference. One organizater remarked on the particularly venomous hatred aimed at both Knox, as well as anyone who defended them. For some reason, the Perugian murder in 2007 (!) and the subsequent media storm created an almost unprecedented hatred....
Quote:
"The three-day festival was organized by Italy’s Innocence Project and the Criminal Bar Association in Modena to discuss “complicated themes” on criminal justice, said Luca Lupária Donati, a law professor at Tre University in Rome and the founder and director of the Italian Innocence Project. Judges and prosecutors were invited to attend.

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

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

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

“We’re still stunned that so many years later there’s still this hatred, this loathing,” Mr. Maimone said.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 17th June 2019 at 01:14 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 01:47 PM   #187
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,319
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Well Numbers, hmmm! I know you're not entirely in agreement with my theory that the cops knew Rudy was the killer from day one, but your highlighted points seems to come pretty close to agreeing with me. These points indicate a need to maximise a case against K&S and minimise the case against Rudy, I agree with that, but what initiated these tactics if it wasn't a knowledge that Rudy was the killer on the first day? In other words when do you think it become imperative to the cops that Rudy had to be protected?

Hoots
Tom, if you don't mind me adding my own $.02... I don't think it was so much protecting Guede as it was protecting the opportunity to bring Amanda and Raffaele to trial, and that became an imperative the moment they decided to stage a massive media event to proclaim themselves masters of the universe by solving the case so quickly using only behavioral study.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 01:48 PM   #188
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,319
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
My word!! This still goes on? Vixen is still banging her drum out of sync and demanding the entire orchestra is out of sync not her.
It’s hopeless when someone ignorant of law posts as if he/SHE is knowledgeable. Clearly ignorance is bliss.
Let’s be clear about this. Lower courts find facts (“legal facts” as defined in law and which are not necessary correct or “empirical facts”. The appeal court is stuck with lower court “facts” whether they like them or not (with few exceptions).
What the appeal court does is to trace the logic of going from “fact” to finding. In the final appeal there was a finding of quantum leaps from “fact” to “finding” by the lower courts (Hellman excluded) which were unsound. To argue anything as being a fact because lower found it so, is to misunderstand law completely.
Yes, but when that's your only option because you can't validate these "facts" using real evidence....
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 03:26 PM   #189
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I believe that the real reason the prosecution did not want the apparent semen stain tested was that they were confident that DNA profiling it would ID Guede. This evidence would contradict Guede's story and make it more difficult to successfully fabricate a case against Knox and Sollecito.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Numbers; 17th June 2019 at 03:29 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 04:33 PM   #190
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
It's also possible, even probable IMO, that the police and Mignini really did jump to the (wrong) conclusion quickly that AK and RS were truly involved and that Guede wasn't even in their site before the forensics came back. Once he was identified, they just switched him for Lumumba. I think the police and prosecutor really believed they had identified the killers but as time went on and the case started to fall apart, it became more a matter of covering their asses and refusing to accept they had been wrong. The police/prosecutors in that matter are no different to people we see here and elsewhere who still hold on to their opinions of guilt.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 05:14 PM   #191
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,314
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It's also possible, even probable IMO, that the police and Mignini really did jump to the (wrong) conclusion quickly that AK and RS were truly involved and that Guede wasn't even in their site before the forensics came back. Once he was identified, they just switched him for Lumumba. I think the police and prosecutor really believed they had identified the killers but as time went on and the case started to fall apart, it became more a matter of covering their asses and refusing to accept they had been wrong. The police/prosecutors in that matter are no different to people we see here and elsewhere who still hold on to their opinions of guilt.
Agreed. I've found that when one cannot decide between sophisticated conspiracy vs. good old fashioned human fallibility, the latter tends to be true far far more often than not.

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

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

Add in confirmation bias (which we all suffer from), and there you have it.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 17th June 2019 at 05:47 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 05:19 PM   #192
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Agreed. I've found that when one cannot decide between sophisticated conspiracy vs. good old fashioned human fallibility, the latter tends to be true far far more often than not.
Agreed. The most simple and obvious explanation is usually the right one. Not always, but usually.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 06:01 PM   #193
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Agreed. I've found that when one cannot decide between sophisticated conspiracy vs. good old fashioned human fallibility, the latter tends to be true far far more often than not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*How do we know this?

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

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

Last edited by Numbers; 17th June 2019 at 07:28 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 04:16 AM   #194
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
ECHR News: The GC Panel review of Knox v. Italy will happen sooner rather that later, on 24 June 2019. Here's the ECHR press release:

"Forthcoming Grand Chamber Panel
At its next meeting (Monday 24 June 2019), a panel of five judges will examine the
following 15 Grand Chamber referral requests.

The decisions of the panel will be made public on Tuesday 25 June 2019 via a press release, which will be available on the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int).

Requests for referral submitted by the applicants

X and Others v. Bulgaria (application no. 22457/16), judgment of 17 January 2019
Arsovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 30206/06), judgment (just
satisfaction) of 7 February 2019
Demjanjuk v. Germany (no. 24247/15), judgment of 24 January 2019
Wunderlich v. Germany (no. 18925/15), judgment of 10 January 2019
Albert and Others v. Hungary (no. 5294/14), judgment of 29 January 2019
Cordella and Others v. Italy (nos. 54414/13 and 54264/15), judgment of 24 January 2019
Algül and Others v. Turkey (no. 59864/12), judgment of 5 February 2019
Yavaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 36366/06), judgment of 5 March 2019

Requests for referral submitted by the Government

Nikitin and Others v. Estonia (nos. 23226/16, 43059/16, 57738/16, 59152/16, 60178/16, 63211/16 and 75362/16), judgment of 29 January 2019

Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13), judgment of 24 January 2019

Ēcis v. Latvia (no. 12879/09), judgment of 10 January 2019
Kopytok v. Russia (no. 48812/09), judgment of 15 January 2019
Utvenko and Borisov v. Russia (nos. 45767/09 and 40452/10), judgment of 5 February 2019
Gömi v. Turkey (no. 38704/11), judgment of 19 February 2019
Uzan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 19620/05, 41487/05, 17613/08 and 19316/08), judgment (merits) of 5 March 2019"

Source: PDF link at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6436363-8464727%22]}

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2019 at 04:21 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 04:45 AM   #195
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
ECHR News: The GC Panel review of Knox v. Italy will happen sooner rather that later, on 24 June 2019. Here's the ECHR press release:

"Forthcoming Grand Chamber Panel
At its next meeting (Monday 24 June 2019), a panel of five judges will examine the
following 15 Grand Chamber referral requests.

The decisions of the panel will be made public on Tuesday 25 June 2019 via a press release, which will be available on the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int).

Requests for referral submitted by the applicants

X and Others v. Bulgaria (application no. 22457/16), judgment of 17 January 2019
Arsovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 30206/06), judgment (just
satisfaction) of 7 February 2019
Demjanjuk v. Germany (no. 24247/15), judgment of 24 January 2019
Wunderlich v. Germany (no. 18925/15), judgment of 10 January 2019
Albert and Others v. Hungary (no. 5294/14), judgment of 29 January 2019
Cordella and Others v. Italy (nos. 54414/13 and 54264/15), judgment of 24 January 2019
Algül and Others v. Turkey (no. 59864/12), judgment of 5 February 2019
Yavaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 36366/06), judgment of 5 March 2019

Requests for referral submitted by the Government

Nikitin and Others v. Estonia (nos. 23226/16, 43059/16, 57738/16, 59152/16, 60178/16, 63211/16 and 75362/16), judgment of 29 January 2019

Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13), judgment of 24 January 2019

Ēcis v. Latvia (no. 12879/09), judgment of 10 January 2019
Kopytok v. Russia (no. 48812/09), judgment of 15 January 2019
Utvenko and Borisov v. Russia (nos. 45767/09 and 40452/10), judgment of 5 February 2019
Gömi v. Turkey (no. 38704/11), judgment of 19 February 2019
Uzan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 19620/05, 41487/05, 17613/08 and 19316/08), judgment (merits) of 5 March 2019"

Source: PDF link at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6436363-8464727%22]}
The GC Panel will, according to the Convention and ECHR Court Rules, review whether there is an "exceptional" basis, primarily relative to the development of ECHR case-law (which may include one or more issues, any one of which may not be "exceptional" itself), for any of the cases, including Knox v. Italy, to be referred to the Grand Chamber. Historically, about 5% of cases requested are accepted for referral.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2019 at 05:51 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 07:02 AM   #196
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,319
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I can't definitively prove that those claiming that the police and prosecutor were "sincere" in their actions against innocents Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick are not correct. But it's also impossible for those claiming that the police and prosecutor were sincere, even in the beginning, to definitively prove their claim.

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

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

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

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

*How do we know this?

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

More than one factor may account for a single wrongful conviction, so the percentages do not add to 100%.
I'm of the belief that the police did honestly think Amanda and Raffaele were involved very early on (2-3 Nov or thereabouts). It's entirely possible that when they learned Amanda's mother was coming they felt an urgency to hurry up and use whatever tactics necessary to get a confession before she arrived and had Amanda lawyer up. I believe the police truly did think they were involved when the interrogation of 5/6 Nov took place.

However, it's clear they knew by 6 Nov that the results of the rape kit indicated a male other than Raffaele or Lumumba. Shortly thereafter, additional forensic data came in that continued to point to someone other than the three they arrested. But by then the arrests had been made and they were committed to their theory of the crime. I believe had the police waited just a few more days before making an arrest, they would never have arrested any of the three. But I think after they made the arrests and held the global media event, there was no turning back.

Mignini knows there was no physical evidence of them being in the room where Meredith was murdered. He knows the knife that was collected is not a fit for the wounds and the DNA results on it are bogus. He knows the Luminol traces were not made from Meredith's blood. He knows Meredith was likely dead or dying during a time where physical evidence puts Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment. He knows there is no motive for either of them to commit such a crime. And lastly, he knows ALL of the evidence points to Guede, and only Guede, and that even the break-in is consistent with his behavior at that time. I'm convinced when Mignini goes to bed, and he thinks about this case, he knows it was Guede, and only Guede. But his arrogance and ego prevent him from admitting that. And the longer this went on, the more dug in he became. I think when he made the comment "If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, I hope they can recover from this..." (or some such thing) he was actually admitting he knew they were innocent. No one who was firming convinced of someone's guilt would ever say such a thing.

All JMHO...
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 07:13 AM   #197
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm of the belief that the police did honestly think Amanda and Raffaele were involved very early on (2-3 Nov or thereabouts). It's entirely possible that when they learned Amanda's mother was coming they felt an urgency to hurry up and use whatever tactics necessary to get a confession before she arrived and had Amanda lawyer up. I believe the police truly did think they were involved when the interrogation of 5/6 Nov took place.

However, it's clear they knew by 6 Nov that the results of the rape kit indicated a male other than Raffaele or Lumumba. Shortly thereafter, additional forensic data came in that continued to point to someone other than the three they arrested. But by then the arrests had been made and they were committed to their theory of the crime. I believe had the police waited just a few more days before making an arrest, they would never have arrested any of the three. But I think after they made the arrests and held the global media event, there was no turning back.

Mignini knows there was no physical evidence of them being in the room where Meredith was murdered. He knows the knife that was collected is not a fit for the wounds and the DNA results on it are bogus. He knows the Luminol traces were not made from Meredith's blood. He knows Meredith was likely dead or dying during a time where physical evidence puts Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment. He knows there is no motive for either of them to commit such a crime. And lastly, he knows ALL of the evidence points to Guede, and only Guede, and that even the break-in is consistent with his behavior at that time. I'm convinced when Mignini goes to bed, and he thinks about this case, he knows it was Guede, and only Guede. But his arrogance and ego prevent him from admitting that. And the longer this went on, the more dug in he became. I think when he made the comment "If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, I hope they can recover from this..." (or some such thing) he was actually admitting he knew they were innocent. No one who was firming convinced of someone's guilt would ever say such a thing.

All JMHO...

Bogus DNA results? Why?
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 07:36 AM   #198
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm of the belief that the police did honestly think Amanda and Raffaele were involved very early on (2-3 Nov or thereabouts). It's entirely possible that when they learned Amanda's mother was coming they felt an urgency to hurry up and use whatever tactics necessary to get a confession before she arrived and had Amanda lawyer up. I believe the police truly did think they were involved when the interrogation of 5/6 Nov took place.

However, it's clear they knew by 6 Nov that the results of the rape kit indicated a male other than Raffaele or Lumumba. Shortly thereafter, additional forensic data came in that continued to point to someone other than the three they arrested. But by then the arrests had been made and they were committed to their theory of the crime. I believe had the police waited just a few more days before making an arrest, they would never have arrested any of the three. But I think after they made the arrests and held the global media event, there was no turning back.

Mignini knows there was no physical evidence of them being in the room where Meredith was murdered. He knows the knife that was collected is not a fit for the wounds and the DNA results on it are bogus. He knows the Luminol traces were not made from Meredith's blood. He knows Meredith was likely dead or dying during a time where physical evidence puts Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment. He knows there is no motive for either of them to commit such a crime. And lastly, he knows ALL of the evidence points to Guede, and only Guede, and that even the break-in is consistent with his behavior at that time. I'm convinced when Mignini goes to bed, and he thinks about this case, he knows it was Guede, and only Guede. But his arrogance and ego prevent him from admitting that. And the longer this went on, the more dug in he became. I think when he made the comment "If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, I hope they can recover from this..." (or some such thing) he was actually admitting he knew they were innocent. No one who was firming convinced of someone's guilt would ever say such a thing.

All JMHO...
1. Of course, the police were convinced that Amanda was guilty of Meredith's murder because, according to his testimony before the Massei court, VQA Giobbi had observed that Amanda had wriggled her hips when she put protective shoe covers on. That's why she was a suspect, he said. What more evidence would anyone need that a female was guilty of murder?

2. Regarding when the police and prosecutor knew that neither Lumumba's nor Raffaele's DNA had matched the rape kit DNA profile: Their DNA samples were collected on Nov. 6. It took some time for those samples to be sent to the Scientific Police in Rome for testing, and for the tests to be completed. The results would have been available probably no sooner than Nov. 7, and would have been known to the police and prosecutor as of the justification of arrest hearing on Nov. 8. Yet, apparently the prosecutor said nothing about them to the magistrate, although according to Italian procedural law (CPP Article 358), the prosecutor must disclose ("ascertain") evidence in the accused's favor as well as the evidence against the accused.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 07:46 AM   #199
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,957
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The GC Panel will, according to the Convention and ECHR Court Rules, review whether there is an "exceptional" basis, primarily relative to the development of ECHR case-law (which may include one or more issues, any one of which may not be "exceptional" itself), for any of the cases, including Knox v. Italy, to be referred to the Grand Chamber. Historically, about 5% of cases requested are accepted for referral.
It may be appropriate to post the following information again:

What is the likelihood of the 5-judge referral panel accepting the request for referral to the Grand Chamber in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy?

Information on the "Practice of the Grand Chamber {Referral Review} Panel" is given as a PDF dated October, 2011 on this ECHR webpage:

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Note_GC_ENG.pdf

Here are some relevant excerpts:

"The current practice of the Panel is not to give reasons for its decisions to accept or reject requests that cases be referred to the Grand Chamber.
....

The Court notes that since its creation with the entry into force, in November 1998, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Panel has examined more than 2,000 referral requests {as of October, 2011}. It has therefore developed a series of guiding principles that have come to be accepted by it over the years. .... {This document summarizes the practice based on that experience.}

As with any selection process, it will not always be possible to anticipate the Panel’s decision with a high degree of precision. The aim of this note is simply to assist the parties in assessing the prospects of success of a referral request.

What follows is a description of how the Panel has functioned since it was set up in 1998. It can be seen that in accordance with its practice, there are certain categories of cases which are not likely to be accepted by the Panel for referral to the Grand Chamber because they are not considered to comply with the requirement that only “exceptional cases” be referred. Conversely, there are also categories of cases which are likely to be accepted by the Panel because they raise issues of consistency of the Court’s case-law or because they raise novel issues of law that require an authoritative determination by the Grand Chamber.

Since the entry into force, on 1 November 1998, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Panel has examined {up to October, 2011} 2,129 requests for referral. 40.01% of these requests (852) were made by respondent Governments, 56.50% (1,203) by applicants and 3.47% (74) by both parties.

Only 110 requests (approximately 5.16% of all requests) have been accepted so far {as of October, 2011}, resulting in the case being referred to the Grand Chamber. Out of these 110 successful requests, 59 (approximately 2.77% of all requests) were made by the respondent Governments, 44 (approximately 2.06% of all requests) by the applicants and 7 (approximately 0.32% of all requests) by both parties.
....


(a) Cases affecting case-law consistency

The fundamental role of the Panel is to ensure that Chamber judgments are consistent with the established case-law of the Court. When a Chamber judgment significantly departs from the previous case-law, the Panel exercises the function conferred on it by the Convention by asking the Grand Chamber to settle the interpretation to be pursued and to determine the dispute.
....
It should be observed, however, that there is a distinction between judgments which depart from the case-law and judgments which simply apply the existing case-law to new situations. The latter do not necessarily lend themselves to referral, as they may be seen as constituting a simple extension of – and not a change in – the case-law. Referral is appropriate only when the Panel feels that such an extension goes beyond the scope of the existing case-law.

(b) Cases which may be suitable for development of the case-law

The Panel may also decide to refer to the Grand Chamber cases which do not disclose, as such, a (potential) inconsistency with the previous case-law, but which present an opportunity for development of the case-law where this is considered appropriate.
....
It goes without saying that in such cases there is nothing to prevent the Grand Chamber from confirming the existing case-law and refusing to endorse the change in approach envisaged by the majority of the Panel.

(c) Cases which are suitable for clarifying the principles set forth in the existing case-law

In some cases referred to the Grand Chamber, the Chamber judgment, without being per se innovative, touched on an area in which it was felt that clarification of the relevant basic principles was needed.
....

(d) Cases in which the Grand Chamber may be called upon to re-examine a development in the case-law endorsed by the Chamber

The Chamber may adopt a judgment which, without explicitly conflicting with previous authorities, may be seen as a significant development of the case-law principles. In these cases, the Panel may feel that confirmation (or rejection) of such a development is needed from the Grand Chamber. This is notably the case when the Chamber has found a violation of the Convention in circumstances which, in the past, had not systematically led to such a conclusion.
....

(e) Cases concerning “new” issues

A reason in favour of referral might be that the Chamber judgment touches on a (relatively new) field of law which has not previously been examined by the Court, and/or which is socially and politically sensitive. In these cases it is frequently felt that guidance is needed from the Court’s enlarged formation on issues which, on account of their original character and the debate they generate in society and the media, should be subjected to the most careful scrutiny. Thus, the Grand Chamber may be given the opportunity to adapt the existing case-law to new situations and/or to develop new principles, having regard to the possible implications for future, similar cases.
....

(f) Cases raising a “serious issue of general importance”

A sub-group of the category of cases mentioned in section (e) above is that of cases which, without addressing a “new” field of law, raise an important issue at European or global level.
....

(g) “High-profile” cases

Finally, some cases are referred to the Grand Chamber both because of the complexity of the legal issues they raise and because of the serious implications for the State concerned. The latter may stem from the identity of the applicant or from the fact that the application concerns matters which are at the centre of a sensitive national, European or global debate. These cases relate to historical, geopolitical or religious issues. They may also concern a specific incident or crime which has attracted exceptional media attention.
....

It should be clarified that the above distinctions are made in order to provide, in outline form, a better understanding of the Panel’s practice and should not be seen as rigid or mutually exclusive. A case referred to the Grand Chamber may also fall within more than one of the categories described above or “in between” some of them. Moreover, referral may sometimes be granted for a number of reasons, none of which would be decisive if taken alone. In connection with this, it is worth noting that the scarcity of case-law on a particular Convention provision, although not per se decisive, may be a factor in favour of referring the case to the Grand Chamber.

Finally, it is to be noted that the practice of the Panel is not set in stone, but is subject to constant potential evolution. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that new criteria for referral – not examined in the present paper – might be developed in the future.
...."
_____
Comments: I certainly cannot begin to guess whether or not the GC Panel will or will not accept Italy's request for Knox v. Italy to be referred to the Grand Chamber. As stated by the ECHR, only about 5% of requests for referral are granted.

Elements of the case that may favor a decision accepting the request include:

1. There may be an inconsistency with ECHR case-law in how the Chamber failed to judge conclusively whether or not Knox was a suspect during the first interrogation of Nov. 5/6.

2. There may be an inconsistency with ECHR case-law (Bouyid v. Belgium) in how the Chamber judged that there was insufficient evidence to declare, without exercising its powers of reasonable inference in accordance with the case-law, that there was a violation of Convention Article 3 in its substantive branch.

3. There there may be an opportunity to further develop or clarify ECHR case-law regarding violations of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e, that is, the case-law regarding the international law about fair interpretation in pre-trial proceedings.

4. There may be a perceived need or opportunity to review a case that has received considerable media attention.

5. There may be a perceived need or opportunity to review the case because of all the above elements (and perhaps others) considered together.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2019 at 08:05 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 08:00 AM   #200
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,319
Originally Posted by sept79 View Post
Bogus DNA results? Why?
Several reasons;

1. 36B tested negative for blood, negative for human species and negative for DNA ("too low" multiple times on the qubit fluorometer). It had the exact same lab results as sample 36C, which was classified as negative and filed away. There was nothing there. It should never have undergone amplification.

2. The knife was improperly handled, being removed from it's collection bag at the police station, where other items containing Meredith's DNA had been. It should have remained sealed until it got to the lab. This introduces the possibility of contamination, rendering any results obtained unreliable.

3. The DNA was LCN and Stefanoni's lab was not certified for LCN profiling. None of the standard precautions to avoid contamination were followed. LCN profiling should be done in a lab that has not previously tested the target DNA.

4. The sample supposedly survived within a striation on the blade that could never be found.

5. The sample was collected toward the tip of the knife, which is the easiest area of the knife to clean. If it was cleaned so thoroughly that nothing could be found at the joint between blade and handle, how did something survive out towards the tip? How were all traces of blood removed yet DNA survived? Blood is more resistant to bleach than DNA.

And let's not forget the knife wasn't even a match for the wounds.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 AM.
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.