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 18th May 2018, 03:51 AM   #161
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
You are correct. Technically this was not an exoneration. Someone who is and according to law always was innocent cannot be exonerated. What happened was that an innocent person was imprisoned for three tears.

Italian law is clear, until confirmation of conviction by court of cassation, a person is innocent. As the conviction was not confirmed Sollecito and Knox were and always had been innocent.

I note you do not disagree with legal fact. What you do is throw mud. What you quote is evidence that the court of cassation determined did not meet the standard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by Italian law. Since they were not guilty they are innocent. That is a legal fact. If they are not guilty then they are innocent.
More skilled sophistry. This does not legally apply to Knox and Sollecito. At the merits trial and at the appeal they were confirmed guilty of Aggravated Murder ('aggravated' because it involved sexual assault of their victim : US equivalent = first degree murder).

It was entirely illegal for the Supreme Court to annul the conviction. In a serious crime such as a murder, they do not have the jursidiction to dismiss charges, where a defendant has fairly been found guilty in a fair trail.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:01 AM   #162
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Nope, you still won't stop trying to misdirect with this "insufficient evidence" stuff, will you? Just as predicted.........
The verdict clearly says in six foot high letters, '530,2 not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

This is not a grade 1 'not guilty' which the vast majority of not guilty verdicts are.

In fact, the only 530,2 verdicts I could find were for Berlusconi and the other Italian statesman* guy whom Bongiorno idolises (and he had actually been found not guilty at the merits trial).

The others were to do with the Bologna terrorist bombings. Members of that group were convicted and then had it annulled via 530,2, because although they were indeed paid up members of the terrorist group, the prosecution could not prove that they were personally responsible for planting the bombs. (This springs to mind the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, who were released as the convictions were considered 'unsafe; Paul Hill was indeed an active IRA member and proud of it).

In effect, 530,2 appears to be a 'legal loophole' which allows political defendants to wriggle out of their convictions.

*Bongiorno was actually this guy's barrister, so it is almost certain Bongiorno suggested to the Marasca court (with no other party present to witness it) it could apply 530,2 to get her clients off, despite being found guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt ( a high bar in a murder/rape case ) by both the trial court and the appeal court.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 18th May 2018 at 04:02 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:04 AM   #163
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Knox didn't participate in the Kercher murder. (Unless you are privy to credible, reliable evidence proving her participation, Vixen). Surely even YOU know this by now. Don't you?
Even the illegal Marasca Supreme Court confirms Knox was definitely at the murder scene whilst Meredith Kercher's blood was still wet, in that it states clearly, she washed the victim's blood from her hands.

FACT.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:06 AM   #164
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ahhh, a GENUINE logical fallacy: argument from incredulity.

So I'm guessing Popovic's claims were exposed as fabricated in the course of the trial process, then? What's that? No they weren't? Oh, right. It just happens to be that Popovic allowed herself to be drawn into a (criminal) conspiracy, which - if uncovered and exposed - could have resulted in her own conviction on perjury-related charges and a significant prison sentence. Yes, that sounds about right. To an illogical, low-intellect nutter.
She was friends with Vanessa, who lived in Milan at the time.

Say no more.

Vanessa was sacked from the Carabinieri for tampering with the evidence.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:09 AM   #165
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
NO.

The Marasca panel, for the last time, could not have issued 530.1 acquittals. Do you know why not, Vixen? (Again that's entirely rhetorical: you obviously don't know the reason).

Here's the reason. Read carefully and try to comprehend this time. OK? Ready? So:

The Marasca panel could, in practice, only have acquitted under 530.1 if either a) it had deemed that no crime had even taken place (and clearly a crime DID indeed take place here - Kercher was murdered by SOMEONE), or b) Knox or Sollecito could have PROVEN their factual innocence (and they could not - but crucially (even though I know you either fail or refuse to understand this point) that is in no way an indicator of guilt, and indeed every single person within, say, 30 miles of Perugia that evening who could not PROVE they could not possibly have been at the cottage at around the time of the murder would be in exactly the same boat).

So neither of the available reasons to acquit under 530.1 was ever even available to the Marasca panel. You still, however, manifestly and stubbornly refuse to (or are intellectually unable to) understand that a 530.2 acquittal is NOT a "not proven" verdict, and similarly you still refuse (or are intellectually unable to) understand the true difference between 530.1 and 530.2, and the relative implications of each.
Complete and utter nonsense. In no jurisdiction that I know of does a defendant 'have to prove his innocence'.

A common or garden 'not guilty' verdict (530,1 in Italy) merely means the State has failed to prove its case. Nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:13 AM   #166
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Will you never stop?

1) Knox and Sollecito were NOT found "not proven". And that is NOT what 530.2 means or implies.

2) There are only an extremely narrow - and extremely rare - number of reasons when a defendant can actually be found "innocent" (i.e. factually innocent) in a trial process. This has been explained to you numerous times. Virtually all acquitted defendants in criminal trial processes (in E&W and the US as well as in Italy) are acquitted for reasons that would map onto 530.2. And we call those people found "not guilty" at trial. Not "innocent". Do you still actually think, for example, that a person acquitted in an E&W trial is ever found "innocent" by the court? Rather, that person is found "not guilty". There are very important ethical and jurisprudence reasons why this should be so, but I won't bother to explain them here because I am near-certain that you will either be incapable of, or unwilling to, understand them.

3) The SC panel in the Knox/Sollecito trial process was not "sitting on the fence". And a 530.2 acquittal in Italy is NOT "sitting on the fence". Once again, I strongly suggest that you at least try to properly acquaint yourself with proper intellectually-sound research into these matters.

4) PLEASE stop mis-employing the term "logical fallacy". It's neither big nor clever when you use the term to describe something which is NOT, in fact, a logical fallacy (amusingly, it's the polar opposite of big or clever....).

Stop prevaricating. The Italian not guilty under article 530,1 does NOT mean actively 'innocent' ; as in the UK and the USA, it means the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Italy virtually 99.999% of 'not guilty' verdicts are under 530.1, with the relevant sub paragraph quoted.

Stop trying to fabricate that 530,2 is a run of the mill 'not guilty' as we understand it.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:16 AM   #167
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This is not Scotland. This thread has been through this 100 times. You repeat it as if it hasn't been disproved.

There are no gradations of not guity/innocence in Italy. But you'll no doubt repeat it again.
It is exactly similar to the Scottish law 'not proven'.

As courts are supposed to come to a decision this rubric is being phased out.

In fact, it is astonishing that the Marasca court pulled it out of the hat. It was the only way it could get the pair out of jail. And it is as illegal and bent as a nine-bob note.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:23 AM   #168
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I never said it was "a given". I said that Guede claiming the man had brown hair in a country where the most common hair color (at 60%*) is brown is going with the odds. What your Italian friends' hair colors are is irrelevant. Stop trying to muddy the waters with unimportant nonsense.




LOL! Ummm..no. Let's not say 1/3 or 50-50 or any of the other percentages as those are just numbers you pulled out of your favorite fact repository that have nothing to do with actual statistics. As for the "he held the knife in his left hand" bit, let's not forget that he writes with is right hand...you know...his dominant hand. Let's also not forget that you have provided no evidence of his being left-handed except for a photo of him holding something in his left hand. Nor have you (or anyone else) provided a single piece of evidence of RS owning or wearing a Napapijri jacket or owning a cap with a red stripe. ROTFLMAO! Can you imagine presenting that as evidence in court? Not even Mignini tried to pull something that ludicrous. Take a note of that.

So, not a good description of Raff.


*(https://www.google.com/search?q=blon...1GMG4r1B8obdM:)


Poor analytic skills. Even if the numerous shades of 'brown hair' are sported by 60% of a population, it still means 40% do not.

Finland has the highest number of blonds, but they are still only 55% - 60% of the population. There are plenty of people with black, brown, auburn or ginger hair.

So if Rudy wanted to fabricate an imaginary character at the scene of the crime, he would surely come up with an imaginative character, the famous 'bushy haired stranger', for example, with striking features such as 'an Albanian' (star defence witness Aviello) or a scar or a beard. But he didn't. He described Raff to a t, although admittedly, Raff is nondescript and unremarkable .

Raff himself put it in writing after Rudy was arrested, that he was frightened Rudy would say 'strange things about me'.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:39 AM   #169
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Things Vixen has admitted in the first 4 pages of this new thread:

1. Popovic presents a strong challenge to the PGP timeline and must be assumed a bent witness to make it work.

2. Rudy Guede cannot in clear and indisputable terms describe Raffaele Sollecito, despite being his supposed accomplice, and we have to subjectively interpret vague inferences based on random photos to even attempt to connect Raffaele and Rudy.

3. The small knife Raffaele is seen holding is compatible with the murder weapon as described by Rudy Guede, thus the murder weapon is not a giant kitchen knife.

Vixen slowly morphing into a PIP?
From the post-mortem, it was clear there were at least two knives involved. One, similar to the one Raff had on his person at the questura was deemed responsible for the relatively smaller stab wounds on the left side of the victim's neck and a large kitchen knife for the fatal wounds on the other side of the neck.

How this pair sleeps at night escapes me.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:44 AM   #170
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You've got several things wrong here:

1. Jovana's mother did not know Vanessa Sollecito. Jovana testified she met Raffaele through a mutual friend named Giovani who lived on Corso Garibaldi.

2. The suitcase was to be put on a bus, not a train.

3. Jovana's mother did not "change her mind". When she tried to give the suitcase to the bus driver, he refused to take it. Jovana said it was "not like in Serbia" where, apparently, this was not unusual.






No one in Italy. But, according to Jovana, it was done in Serbia where she and her mother were from. It was a simple cultural misunderstanding and not the conspiracy you'd like to believe.

Try reading the court testimony.
How convenient. A bus leaving Milan (where Raff's sister lived) at about eight, to arrive four hours later, at midnight.

Popovich claimed she went round to Raff's in person because she wanted to save the battery on her mobile.


Let's face it, her role was to affirm that she witnessed Raff and Amanda together at 8:40 at his apartment. This is because Raff had previously given police a signed witness statement that he came home alone, after going into town between 4:30 and 6:00 and that Amanda did not turn up again until 01:00.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:46 AM   #171
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The guilters need some excuse, even an absurd one, to hide from the reality of the case - that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the murder/rape of Kercher and were definitively and finally acquitted of those charges by the Supreme Court of Cassation, by a judgment fully compliant with Italian law.

Boninsegna's judgment is of such importance that the ECHR published an excerpt from it in the ECHR's Communication to Italy, which formally launched the case Knox v. Italy from Knox's application to the ECHR.

At least I don't have to resort to revising Italian law to suit my narrative.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:48 AM   #172
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Just curious, Vixen... exactly when did Amanda and Raffaele come up with this story and when did they meet with the Popovic's to get the story straight? They told the police about Popovic coming to Raffaele's apartment when they were questioned at the Questura, so did they come up with the story before the murder or did they swing by in the middle of the night, after the murder? And why do you suppose both Jovana and her mother would both agree to lie about this in order to protect two people being investigated for murder?

I honestly thought you were joking. I should have known better. You really are pathetic.


As Popovic admitted in court, she knew Raff through one of his friends (of course she is not going to mention his sister in Milan!).

Hello? 'A friend of Raff'.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:50 AM   #173
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
For the benefit of any lurkers and other readers, I repeat here, with minor modifications for clarity of some of my introductory comments and the numbering of the annotations, a previous post which includes an annotated translation of the relevant excerpt in the ECHR Communication of Knox v. Italy.
_______

Amanda was acquitted of continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini by the Boninsegna court, and the Italian authorities - that is, the prosecutor in that case - did not appeal that judgment of acquittal, making it final.

The ECHR has mentioned the Boninsegna judgment in its Communication to Italy, even including an excerpt from the Boninsegna motivation report in its summary of the history of the case. The attention of the ECHR to the Boninsegna MR suggests how the ECHR will judge the merits of the case.

Here is a translation of the ECHR's excerpt (Section 2(i) of the “EXPOSÉ DES FAITS” [Statement of Facts]):

"Meanwhile, the applicant was the subject of another criminal trial for false accusation, in particular concerning the statements she had made on 13 March, 12 June and 13 June 2009 against the police officers who carried out her interrogations. {1} By a judgment of 14 January 2016, the Florence Court {of Judge Boninsegna} acquitted the applicant.

In particular, {2} the court considered that the applicant had been subjected to intense psychological pressure from the investigators, leading her to formulate the name of Mr. DL {Diya (Patrick) Lumumba} for the sole purpose of terminating a treatment contrary to the {legally guaranteed} rights of a person under investigation. The relevant passages of this judgment, as far as the present application is concerned, read as follows:

"{3} The investigation activities (...) concerning the applicant {Knox, the accused in the case} are characterized by numerous procedural irregularities which led the Court of Cassation to consider [1 April 2008] that the statements collected were not usable. (...)

{4} Due to the deficiencies of the [investigation] activities, the minutes are not reliable as to the starting time of the activities. Moreover, the minutes do not indicate the closing times. (...)

{5} The totally inappropriate choice of interpreters was also irregular. These were agents of the Perugia Police Bureau. Thus they were placed in a situation of professional collaboration with the colleagues who were carrying out the investigations. This resulted in emotionally empathic behavior [with the applicant]. This was taking place in an extremely delicate context, not only for the investigations (the declarations relating to them having been considered {by the CSC} unusable thereafter) but also concerning the position [of the applicant] who was at that time under investigation.

{6} This ambiguous quality of the person performing auxiliary duties for the police and, at the same time, belonging to the investigators' own team was accompanied by maternal attitudes and overwhelmingly strong emotion (in particular regarding the behavior not required and at least atypical of [two interpreters] and one of the police officers [some having taken familiar attitudes tending to create empathy with the applicant and the other having taken her hand in hand and hugging {embracing} (abbracciata) her while she was making accusations against Mr. DL)] (...).

{7} The interpreters should have been uninvolved and neutral in relation to the ongoing criminal procedure with the obvious and basic aim of avoiding contaminations that affect the professional performance of the auxiliary {task of interpretation}. (...)

{8} All these circumstances do not appear in the minutes (...). {9} The only appropriate approach in this case was to inform the person under investigation of her rights of defense, declared inviolable in our Constitution. This was for the obvious reason that she was a person who was to be put in a position to defend her personal freedom in relation to the authority of the State, the latter having already attributed to [the applicant], by the investigators' bias, the quality of the person being a suspect. (...)

{10} This situation is in contradiction with the applicant's immediate subsequent detention, although she had just been treated with a maternal attitude and kind affection. This course of events certainly created some embarrassment, especially for the person concerned, which should have been avoided (...) in order to safeguard the dignity [of the applicant] (...), as well as her personal freedom as a fundamental and inviolable right of the person, which constitutes an aspect ... of fundamental human rights. (...)

[In this context]{11} the principle of the presumption of innocence was also ignored. (...) »"

Translated from the ECHR original (in French) by Google translate with my help.


The ECHR's task - which relevant to Knox v. Italy is to judge whether or not there have been any violation(s) of Knox's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights - is to declare in its judgment any such violation(s), and to indicate in its judgment what it considers the necessary individual and general measures required to redress any such violation(s), which may include suggestions for reforms in the practices or laws of a respondent state (in this case, Italy) found to have violated the Convention.

Here's an annotated list of some of the implications of the excerpt for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

1. The Boninsegna court found Knox's allegations, in light of the testimony of the witnesses, to have credibility: "the chosen investigative practices induced in the defendant the conviction, or the reasonable doubt, that she was being subjected to a planned, oppressive and unfair investigative action - this also takes into account Knox’s definitive acquittal in the main criminal trial because she did not commit the crime of murder - in light of the overall way in which her interrogation was performed.

There is, therefore, an absence of the evidence to place beyond a reasonable doubt that the events did not indeed occur as the girl related and that she was fully aware of the non-involvement of the Prosecutor in the way the investigations concerning her were performed.

Pursuant to article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure,
acquits Knox Amanda Marie for the charge under letter a), because the facts do not exist, and for the charge under letter b), because the facts do not exist and because the act does not constitute an offense, as regards the accusations addressed to Dr. Giuliano Mignini."

2. Intense psychological pressure, especially when accompanied by the denial of defense rights such as warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present, and the provision of an uninvolved, neutral interpreter, in an interrogation by investigators to obtain a statement to incriminate the person questioned or another person is highly likely to be considered a violation of Convention Article 3 by the ECHR, not as torture, but as inhuman or degrading treatment.

3. The statements made by Knox during the interrogations of Knox on Nov. 5/6 by the police and Mignini had already been declared unusable against her by the Gemelli CSC panel. The use of her statements against her for the charge of calunnia against Lumumba because of her "defensive" statement after the interrogation, as allowed by that CSC panel, may be considered arbitrary and a violation of the Convention by the ECHR, because she was still denied a lawyer, required under Italian law and ECHR case-law, at the relevant time. Mignini apparently did not follow Italian law in denying lawyers for Knox and Sollecito in the period Nov. 5 to Nov. 8.

4. The police and prosecutor are obligated under Italian law to record, using audio or audiovisual methods, questioning of a detained person. Even if the audio or audiovisual equipment were unavailable, detailed minutes are required by Italian law, including the start and finish times, who was present, and of course, the questions and answers, when a suspect is questioned. The presence of a defense lawyer for the suspect is also required, except under specified circumstances, and must be validated in writing and approved by a magistrate.

5. An interpreter is required at all stages of a criminal proceeding, including questioning of a suspect, when the suspect does not fully understand the language used in the questioning, according to the Convention. The interpreter must be neutral and fair.

6. The measures adopted by the police and their interpreter of suggesting amnesia and also of embracing and/or touching Knox would be likely to constitute violations of the Convention under Article 8. While not all violations of Article 8 against a suspect imply violations of Article 6 (unfair trial), it is likely these do, because of the intent to induce the person questioned to make a statement against herself or another person.

7. A clear statement by Boninsegna of the issues indicating a violation of Convention regarding the interpreters, when the statements obtained in the questioning are used against the person questioned or another person.

8. Again, Boninsegna indicates (indirectly) the violation of Italian law in the way the activities of the questioning of Nov. 5/6 were not recorded. This type of violation of domestic law which results in use of statements obtained from the questioning to convict someone is likely to be considered a violation of the Convention.

9. The Boninsegna MR language is a point-blank statement that Knox's defense rights were violated. The ECHR will note that the rights violated, such as the right to remain silent, the right to have a lawyer during questioning, and the right to a fair and neutral interpreter, were among those guaranteed by the Convention and ECHR case-law. Thus, based upon the publicly known information on the case, the ECHR would be bound by the Convention - the international law that it operates by - to declare that Italy had violated Knox's rights under the Convention.

10. The Boninsegna MR language is likely to give the ECHR exactly the type of information it seeks to find a violation of Convention Article 6 with Article 3, because in its case-law, violations of the dignity of a person under the control of the authorities is a violation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment).

11. This language may induce the ECHR to find a violation of the presumption of innocence, whether or not Knox listed that specific allegation in her application. The ECHR will sometimes, as the master of the facts and the law under the Convention, specify violations of the Convention based upon the facts, even when not specifically requested by the applicant.
As set out by Carlos Dalla Vedova, Knox' lawyer.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:52 AM   #174
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. They were questioned in great detail hours after the murder. And I don't know about you, but I'm not going to lie for neighbor to provide them with an alibi for a murder.

This idea of hers that Popovic was lying is almost as bizarre as the menage a trois murder fantasy of strangers she insists that happened. No, on second thought, it's bizarre, just not that bizarre.
People stick up for their friends all the time. The families of the WM3 had no problem providing alibis for the accused, claiming Echols had been home as of the time of the murders, as was the other guy.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 04:54 AM   #175
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen mentioned that RS opened his laptop with his left hand. She sees this as evidence he is left-handed. As I was opening mine a few seconds ago, I noticed that I, too, used my left hand to lift the lid while holding it down with my right. I guess that makes me left-handed dominant despite the fact that I am most definitely right-handed. Maybe someone taught me to only write with my right-hand and suppress my natural left-handed dominance. Could be it's just trauma induced amnesia.
You are doing it again. Making extrapolations which do not disprove that Raff's preferred hand for holding a knife is his left.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 05:04 AM   #176
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
In the more rural areas of the UK I have seen the same thing happen. Someone flags down a bus, puts on a cardboard box buys a ticket, tells the driver someone will pick it up at another stop, gets off, and the bus drives on with the box. A little later someone flags down the bus and picks up the package. This is one of the ways small businesses survive in the countryside.
Say you wanted to provide an alibi for a friend of yours in trouble. You have been asked to confirm you witnessed them at a particular location. You then have to think up a plausible reason as to your own presence there.

So you dream up a story that your mother, a respectable middle-aged lady living 300 miles away has asked you to pick up a suitcase she is sending you by bus, to arrive midnight. This is why you needed to go around to your friend's flat to ask if they can give you a lift to the bus station to pick it up. You then needed to return at 8:40 (after the time she was supposed to put the suitcase on the bus [a four hour journey]) to say they do not need to give you a lift to the station after all. This you do by sprinting or walking briskly from the university building where you are studying, immediately after class finishes (8:30). And you have to go in person because you want to save your phone battery. You therefore can confirm you saw your friend at hsi apartment at 8:40 and you and your mum are completely neutral random witnesses to this fact.

Mission accomplished.

As the event never happened, nobody can prove that you never had a suitcase to be deposited in the first place. As you know, in science it is impossible to prove a negative. Just your word for it. And you have told your mother to confirm there was such a plan.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 05:06 AM   #177
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
4. Jovana had not just finished a "medical class" as you claimed. She had just finished a music lesson.
Whatever.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 05:29 AM   #178
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
The statements of the guilters are hilariously wrong. It's not clear if their errors in their statements about Italian law and European Convention of Human Rights law are intentional cover-ups of the guilters' absolute lack of any valid arguments or the result of a profound ignorance.

Here is a brief summary of the presentation of Italian law in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), for example, CPP Article 530.

Each article of law in the CPP is numbered with an integer; in cases where a new law has been inserted between two existing laws, the identifying integer may be that of the first law followed by a sequence word such as "bis" [second in order] or "ter" [third in order]. Each article, including CPP Article 530, consists of one or more paragraphs. Each and every paragraph within an article is sequentially numbered, and each and every subparagraph (if such are present) is sequentially designated by a letter of the Italian alphabet.

CPP Article 530 consists of 4 paragraphs, numbered 1 through 4. The article following CPP Article 530 is CPP Article 531. It is customary to refer to a specific paragraph, for example, paragraph 2, of a specific article, for example, CPP Article 530, by writing "CPP Article 530.2" or "CPP Article 530,2", when chooses not to write out in full "paragraph 2 of CPP Article 530".

On another point, the text of the Boninsegna court's motivation report was authored and signed by Judge Boninsegna, and not by Amanda Knox's lawyer.
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 May 2018, 05:38 AM   #179
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,543
Twenty-one posts in 88 minutes. Wow!

Every one of them simple repetition of long since debunked assertions, except for a repost of a Tweet from someone named "Robin" which Vixen claims proves something.

The guilter-PR campaign continues a wee bit shortstaffed.
__________________
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 18th May 2018, 05:38 AM   #180
Wilson85
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Paragraph one, (530.1) has four sub-sections numbered one to four. Subsection no 2 of 530.1 is NOT Article 530.2.

530.1 paras 1,2,3,4 is completely separate and different from 530.2, which has no subsections.


The misapprehension has arisen, because whoever compiled the wikipedia in this, omitted article 530.2, leading people to believe 530.1, para 2, was what the Supreme Court was referring to.
Can you please provide content of what you think is written in Art 530.2?
Wilson85 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 May 2018, 06:30 AM   #181
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
People stick up for their friends all the time. The families of the WM3 had no problem providing alibis for the accused, claiming Echols had been home as of the time of the murders, as was the other guy.
What is your evidence of this friendship, including evidence that it wasn't just a casual one; it had to be strong enough for someone to risk being involved in a cover-up of a murder. Popovic's mother wasn't a friend so why would she risk that? And I'm still waiting to hear WHEN they had the opportunity to get together to create the story in the first place.

The funny thing here is no one ever questioned Popovic's testimony - no one. Not the police, not the prosecutor, not the courts. Just our open-minded, unbiased Vixen.

Compare this to Curatolo claiming to have seen Amanda and Raffaele on a night when there was holiday ruckus with people in costume boarding disco buses, and how you've desperately tried to argue this didn't have to be Halloween. Or how Quintavalle told Vulturno, after looking at a picture of Amanda, that he had seen her a couple of times but always in the company of Raffaele, only to change his mind a YEAR later and then claim he saw her alone that morning. Or how Capezzali, the elderly, hard of hearing woman who claims to have heard a scream at 23:00 or later followed by footsteps running in two different directions - something that has been proven to be virtually impossible even for someone with good hearing - and who claimed the following morning she read about the murder on the cover of a paper two hours before the body was found. In ALL cases you accept the testimony as honest, accurate, reliable and without question. But Popovic... nope, has to be a conspiracy to cover up a crime.

I'm guessing you have absolutely no idea how dishonest and disingenuous you prove yourself to be with comments like this.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 06:41 AM   #182
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
What is your evidence of this friendship, including evidence that it wasn't just a casual one; it had to be strong enough for someone to risk being involved in a cover-up of a murder. Popovic's mother wasn't a friend so why would she risk that? And I'm still waiting to hear WHEN they had the opportunity to get together to create the story in the first place.

The funny thing here is no one ever questioned Popovic's testimony - no one. Not the police, not the prosecutor, not the courts. Just our open-minded, unbiased Vixen.

Compare this to Curatolo claiming to have seen Amanda and Raffaele on a night when there was holiday ruckus with people in costume boarding disco buses, and how you've desperately tried to argue this didn't have to be Halloween. Or how Quintavalle told Vulturno, after looking at a picture of Amanda, that he had seen her a couple of times but always in the company of Raffaele, only to change his mind a YEAR later and then claim he saw her alone that morning. Or how Capezzali, the elderly, hard of hearing woman who claims to have heard a scream at 23:00 or later followed by footsteps running in two different directions - something that has been proven to be virtually impossible even for someone with good hearing - and who claimed the following morning she read about the murder on the cover of a paper two hours before the body was found. In ALL cases you accept the testimony as honest, accurate, reliable and without question. But Popovic... nope, has to be a conspiracy to cover up a crime.

I'm guessing you have absolutely no idea how dishonest and disingenuous you prove yourself to be with comments like this.
As I said, I am sceptical of Popovich's story, for reasons I went on to state.

The court found her story accepted. And it still found Raff and Knox guilty of aggravated murder.

I've been asked by work colleagues to falsely say someone is not at their desk, when they want to avoid a phone call. People ask others to cover up for them all the time.

(I just tell the caller the other person is 'not available ATM' so not a complete lie.)
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 06:48 AM   #183
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Paragraph one, (530.1) has four sub-sections numbered one to four. Subsection no 2 of 530.1 is NOT Article 530.2.

530.1 paras 1,2,3,4 is completely separate and different from 530.2, which has no subsections.


The misapprehension has arisen, because whoever compiled the wikipedia in this, omitted article 530.2, leading people to believe 530.1, para 2, was what the Supreme Court was referring to.
As Williams would say... round and round we go.

So let's try this one more time.

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...v_art_prec_top

This is NOT wikipedia, this is straight from the Italian CPP. I copied Article 530 (all four paragraphs) here for your convenience but by all means, please use the link to go read for yourself. You'll notice there are these handy-dandy "<- ART.PREVIOUS" and "ART.NEXT ->" links on both the top and bottom of each page. That should assist you as you find your way to Article 530.2, where you can then copy/paste the content here.

OR.... you can just admit you are wrong and be done with it. You're choice. I'll just kick back with some popcorn and enjoy the action.

Quote:
Article 530 Code of criminal procedure
(Presidential Decree September 22nd 1988, n.477)
Judgment of acquittal

Device of the art. 530 Code of criminal procedure
Sources → Code of Penal Procedure → SEVENTH BOOK - Judgment → Title III - Judgment → Chapter II - Decision → Section I - Dismissal

1. If the fact does not exist [ 541 2, 542 ], if the defendant has not committed it [ 541 2, 542 ], if the fact does not constitute a crime or is not provided for by the law as a crime or if the crime was committed as a non-imputable person [cp 85 ] or not punishable by another reason, the judge pronounces an acquittal sentence by indicating the cause in the operative part.

2. The judge pronounces the acquittal sentence even when it is absent, it is insufficient or contradictory evidence that the fact exists, that the defendant committed it, that the offense is a crime or that the offense was committed by an imputable person (1).

3. If there is evidence that the fact was committed in the presence of a cause of justification or a personal cause of non-punishment or there is doubt about the existence of the same, the judge pronounces an acquittal sentence pursuant to paragraph 1.

4. With the sentence of acquittal, the judge applies, in the cases foreseen by the law, the security measures [ 537 ].
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 May 2018, 06:59 AM   #184
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As I said, I am sceptical of Popovich's story, for reasons I went on to state.

The court found her story accepted. And it still found Raff and Knox guilty of aggravated murder.

I've been asked by work colleagues to falsely say someone is not at their desk, when they want to avoid a phone call. People ask others to cover up for them all the time.

(I just tell the caller the other person is 'not available ATM' so not a complete lie.)
No, you didn't state any reasons. What you did was created a wholly unsubstantiated, fully biased fictional account of why Popovic testified as she did. In fact, the reasons to believe her were;

1. Her mother confirms her effort to send the suitcase and why it was denied
2. Her mother confirms calling Jovana to tell her it wasn't coming.
3. Amanda and Raffaele told the police at the Questura of Jovana's request and her coming by to say she no longer needed a ride.
4. The rapid, wholly consistent story from four people without any obvious opportunity to fabricate the story between them.
5. The unlikelihood that a casual friend and her mother (not at all familiar with any of them) would risk being involved in a cover-up of a murder.
6. No known inconsistencies in the story from any of the people involved.
7. The witnesses were deemed credible by the courts
8. (possible) Confirmation by the bus company that Popovic's mother tried to send the suitcase but was denied.
9. Popovich first asked another person (Michele) to give her a ride to the bus station. Michele was prevented - therefore Popovic asked Raffaele. If Popovic's story was made up it would not include this part. (credit to Wilson85 for bringing up this point!)

Despite this you go out of your way to fabricate from whole cloth why you choose not to believe her.

It wouldn't be so bad if you were overly suspicious of every witness, but that you accept without question the testimony of some of the easiest people to prove contradiction and credibility issues for shows just how closed-minded and biased you are with this case.

Last edited by TruthCalls; 18th May 2018 at 08:15 AM.
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 May 2018, 07:08 AM   #185
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,543
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
From the post-mortem, it was clear there were at least two knives involved. One, similar to the one Raff had on his person at the questura was deemed responsible for the relatively smaller stab wounds on the left side of the victim's neck and a large kitchen knife for the fatal wounds on the other side of the neck.

How this pair sleeps at night escapes me.
The post-mortem does not "make clear" that two knives were used. If it had, you'd have quoted from/cited it.

Just chucking that sentence into a post on ISF demonstrates that you'll invent anything.
__________________
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 18th May 2018, 07:13 AM   #186
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
No, you didn't state any reasons. What you did was created a wholly unsubstantiated, fully biased fictional account of why Popovic testified as she did. In fact, the reasons to believe her were;

1. Her mother confirms her effort to send the suitcase and why it was denied
2. Her mother confirms calling Jovana to tell her it wasn't coming.
3. Amanda and Raffaele told the police at the Questura of Jovana's request and her coming by to say she no longer needed a ride.
4. The rapid, wholly consistent story from four people without any obvious opportunity to fabricate the story between them.
5. The unlikelihood that a casual friend and her mother (not at all familiar with any of them) would risk being involved in a cover-up of a murder.
6. No known inconsistencies in the story from any of the people involved.
7. The witnesses were deemed credible by the courts
8. (possible) Confirmation by the bus company that Popovic's mother tried to send the suitcase but was denied.

Despite this you go out of your way to fabricate from whole cloth why you choose not to believe her.

It wouldn't be so bad if you were overly suspicious of every witness, but that you accept without question the testimony of some of the easiest people to prove contradiction and credibility issues for shows just how closed-minded and biased you are with this case.

They were not under any risk as nobody can prove that there never was any suitcase due to be placed on the bus, as it never happened.

As for Raff and Knox, as defendants they are legally entitled to lie to their hearts' content.

And they did.

They lied, and lied, and lied.


And lied again.


And are still lying today (although Raff appears to have been gagged).
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 07:50 AM   #187
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,543
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
They were not under any risk as nobody can prove that there never was any suitcase due to be placed on the bus, as it never happened.

As for Raff and Knox, as defendants they are legally entitled to lie to their hearts' content.

And they did.

They lied, and lied, and lied.


And lied again.


And are still lying today (although Raff appears to have been gagged).
Lord love a duck.

Should I post the comprehension "list of lies" again, drawn from the ever-articulate Harry Rag's posts?

From Harry's own keyboard to Cassazione's ears, Harry tried his best to provide detail to the slander, and came up well short.
__________________
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 18th May 2018, 07:59 AM   #188
Wilson85
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As I said, I am sceptical of Popovich's story, for reasons I went on to state.

The court found her story accepted. And it still found Raff and Knox guilty of aggravated murder.

I've been asked by work colleagues to falsely say someone is not at their desk, when they want to avoid a phone call. People ask others to cover up for them all the time.

(I just tell the caller the other person is 'not available ATM' so not a complete lie.)
Popovich first asked another person (Michele) to give her a ride to the bus station. Michele was prevented - therefore Popovic asked Raffaele. If Popovic's story was made up it would not include this part.
Wilson85 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 May 2018, 08:13 AM   #189
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Lord love a duck.

Should I post the comprehension "list of lies" again, drawn from the ever-articulate Harry Rag's posts?

From Harry's own keyboard to Cassazione's ears, Harry tried his best to provide detail to the slander, and came up well short.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Vixen has lied so many times we'd need a calculator to keep up.

Of course, Vixen avoids all the very credible reasons why she should accept the testimony as truthful, not least of which being the investigators who worked so hard to try to convict Amanda and Raffaele never disputed the testimony.

I notice Vixen has now moved up from being suspicious to certainty that "it never happened". Of course, had the investigators had any doubts about this testimony they could have tracked down the driver of the bus that evening and confirmed Popovic's mother tried to send the suitcase. And this, of course, renders this blathering comment from Vixen moot;

"They were not under any risk as nobody can prove that there never was any suitcase due to be placed on the bus, as it never happened."

Imagine if the investigators interviewed the bus driver and s/he stated no one ever tried to send a suitcase on the bus. That would certainly be a problem for someone who claimed they tried to do that and were told by the driver they couldn't. But Vixen just ignores this and claims there was no risk in lying to help cover for someone she didn't know.

But Curatolo, Quintavalle, Capezzali... yeah, they're all credible and beyond reproach.
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 May 2018, 08:29 AM   #190
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
As Williams would say... round and round we go.

So let's try this one more time.

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...v_art_prec_top

This is NOT wikipedia, this is straight from the Italian CPP. I copied Article 530 (all four paragraphs) here for your convenience but by all means, please use the link to go read for yourself. You'll notice there are these handy-dandy "<- ART.PREVIOUS" and "ART.NEXT ->" links on both the top and bottom of each page. That should assist you as you find your way to Article 530.2, where you can then copy/paste the content here.

OR.... you can just admit you are wrong and be done with it. You're choice. I'll just kick back with some popcorn and enjoy the action.
Interesting that "Next Article" ("Art. Successivo" in the original) leads to CPP Article 531, not Article 530.2.

Could this mean that there is a conspiracy by the Mafia and/or Masons to change the website? Or did a guilter not read all the relevant information?

It's a mystery that will never be solved!
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 May 2018, 08:42 AM   #191
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,613
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Great tweet here. It is a reproduction of the court testimony in which Amanda Knox confesses that she offered Patrick Lumumba's name freely and voluntarily, without any pressure from the police.

https://twitter.com/Robyn__Duncan/st...49261300305921

Bang goes another PR lie.
This is just pitiful. Stop misrepresenting things along with that RD troll. Knox was clearly referring to two different occasions. The first is when she was being interrogated and the second is when she was writing her memorandum hours later. In the memorandum, she does not accuse Lumumba. In fact, she clearly states that she is unsure of the verity of her previous statements and is not sure if it actually happened at all.
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 18th May 2018, 08:46 AM   #192
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Paragraph one, (530.1) has four sub-sections numbered one to four. Subsection no 2 of 530.1 is NOT Article 530.2.

530.1 paras 1,2,3,4 is completely separate and different from 530.2, which has no subsections.


The misapprehension has arisen, because whoever compiled the wikipedia in this, omitted article 530.2, leading people to believe 530.1, para 2, was what the Supreme Court was referring to.

Spectacularly incorrect. And boneheadedly stupid.

the ".1" of 530.1 indicates the paragraph number. It's Section 530, Paragraph 1.

It's childishly simple to actually RESEARCH AND READ the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and its English translation. And if one does that, one will immediately and easily see that Section 530 has four paragraphs - and they are annotated 530.1, 530.2, 530.3 and 530.4. Section 530.1 consists of just one paragraph of text.

Please, please, can a pro-guilt commentator come here to make an argument who at least doesn't make (and REPEAT) such ridiculous errors as this? Please??
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 18th May 2018, 08:48 AM   #193
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,613
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Many killers start out as burglars:


Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/455...637a1b1941.pdf

Interesting read. Describes Guede to a T, 8 years before he sliced open Kercher's neck and sexually assaulted her then left her to choke on her own blood and bleed out while he dug through her purse for goodies.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is one of the most common of logical fallacies: 'Homer is a man, therefore, all men are Homer'.
Bagels never said that all killers start out as burglars. Try again.
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 18th May 2018, 08:55 AM   #194
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is one of the most common of logical fallacies: 'Homer is a man, therefore, all men are Homer'.

Er no.

While you have (finally) accurately identified a (theoretical) form of logical fallacy, that fallacy in no way applies to the argument you addressed. It is not in any way a logical fallacy to point out that many murderers do indeed graduate from crimes against property or animals through to murder, and then to point out that Guede had a prior history of burglary (whereas of course Sollecito and Knox did not). The argument was NOT that this therefore necessarily meant that Sollecito and Knox could not have been participants in Kercher's murder - if that HAD been the argument, then you'd have been correct in identifying and pointing out the logical fallacy. But you were wrong to claim the fallacy had been used.

"Logical fallacy" fail Number 17,439 on your part, I believe........
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 18th May 2018, 08:57 AM   #195
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
More skilled sophistry. This does not legally apply to Knox and Sollecito. At the merits trial and at the appeal they were confirmed guilty of Aggravated Murder ('aggravated' because it involved sexual assault of their victim : US equivalent = first degree murder).

It was entirely illegal for the Supreme Court to annul the conviction. In a serious crime such as a murder, they do not have the jursidiction to dismiss charges, where a defendant has fairly been found guilty in a fair trail.

Oh blimey. Can you still not understand?

Knox and Sollecito DID NOT GET FAIR TRIALS from the convicting courts.

That's precisely how and why the Supreme Court annulled and acquitted.

Jesus.
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 18th May 2018, 08:59 AM   #196
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is not a grade 1 'not guilty' which the vast majority of not guilty verdicts are.

This is an astonishingly, laughably incorrect assertion.

Or perhaps you can actually show me reliable, credible statistics on the relative proportions of acquittals in Italian criminal courts which are under 530.1 and 530.2. Oh, what's that? You don't HAVE any such statistics? And you've just pulled a bogus "fact" straight out of your backside to try to bolster your argument? Ah, thought so.
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 18th May 2018, 09:00 AM   #197
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Interesting that "Next Article" ("Art. Successivo" in the original) leads to CPP Article 531, not Article 530.2.

Could this mean that there is a conspiracy by the Mafia and/or Masons to change the website? Or did a guilter not read all the relevant information?

It's a mystery that will never be solved!
Exactly... I was providing Vixen the rope to hang herself with. I can't wait to see how she explains this one away. It should prove to be highly entertaining!
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 May 2018, 09:02 AM   #198
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Even the illegal Marasca Supreme Court confirms Knox was definitely at the murder scene whilst Meredith Kercher's blood was still wet, in that it states clearly, she washed the victim's blood from her hands.

FACT.

*sigh*

Get a friend (!!)* to explain to you how/why the Marasca panel was effectively forced to ensure that its MR did not conflict in any way with the verdicts and MRs of the prior settled cases (i.e. the Guede murder trial process and the Knox criminal slander trial process).


* But not that gold-plated nutcase Robyn Duncan......
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 18th May 2018, 09:06 AM   #199
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Complete and utter nonsense. In no jurisdiction that I know of does a defendant 'have to prove his innocence'.

You've entirely failed to understand my post.



Quote:
A common or garden 'not guilty' verdict (530,1 in Italy) merely means the State has failed to prove its case. Nothing more, nothing less.

Once again: 530.1 is NOT a "common-or-garden not-guilty verdict". Please, please get an education by reading the actual Section 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. As has been pointed out to you more times that I can remember, 530.1 is effectively only ever used where either a) the court deems that no crime was even committed (e.g. a rape trial where the court deems that what occurred was actually consensual sex rather than the crime of rape), or b) the defendant can actually factually prove his/her innocence to the satisfaction of the court.

Please educate yourself properly before coming here and attempting to make arguments. It's embarrassing and a waste of time all round, otherwise.....
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 18th May 2018, 09:07 AM   #200
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Spectacularly incorrect. And boneheadedly stupid.

the ".1" of 530.1 indicates the paragraph number. It's Section 530, Paragraph 1.

It's childishly simple to actually RESEARCH AND READ the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and its English translation. And if one does that, one will immediately and easily see that Section 530 has four paragraphs - and they are annotated 530.1, 530.2, 530.3 and 530.4. Section 530.1 consists of just one paragraph of text.

Please, please, can a pro-guilt commentator come here to make an argument who at least doesn't make (and REPEAT) such ridiculous errors as this? Please??
This is the problem....the pro-guilt side has no valid arguments to make. That explains why we see the continual repetition of absurdities by those who still post.
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
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 01:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.