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

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


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

Reply
Old 22nd October 2021, 09:23 PM   #1561
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,151
Originally Posted by Bill Williams
Most of this article is no one's business, except for the bits directly about the case. Ok ok, me I'm part of the problem, too.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I posted the link to it here because it was a) from the NY Times (a non-tabloid), and b) obviously Knox wanted people to see this article, since she sat for an interview.

Knox will also have an interview (in Italian) broadcast on an Italian media outlet on this Tuesday, but I don't have a link at this point.

Note that the article makes some smallish errors on the legal points - for example, confusing together judgments of the ECHR and the Marasca CSC panel.
Numbers - I did not mean this as a swipe at you. If I was not clear, then I should be now - I am as much a part of the problem as anyone in 'personalizing' this around only one of the cast of characters defined from that horrible murder in Perugia in 2007.
__________________
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 22nd October 2021, 11:43 PM   #1562
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Numbers - I did not mean this as a swipe at you. If I was not clear, then I should be now - I am as much a part of the problem as anyone in 'personalizing' this around only one of the cast of characters defined from that horrible murder in Perugia in 2007.
No, I more than agree with you that it's not the most sensible behavior to dwell on the personalities or lives of any of the persons involved in the Kercher and Knox - Sollecito cases.

However, Knox obviously agreed to the interview and photos for this feature article in the New York Times, a prominent newspaper in the US, which most likely has an audience much larger than her podcasts with Christopher Robinson.

So, I believe that reading the NY Times article may be useful. I will repeat my caution that the legal points, as transmitted by the article's author, are somewhat garbled. This is apparently because the author seems to be transposing US judicial concepts to Italy, where they don't match up.

For example, here are some bloopers from the article which have an element of truth but are possibly misleading:

"In Italy, home of the paparazzi, juries are not sequestered and it is common for police and lawyers to leak information to the press."

In reality, there are no juries whatsoever in the US sense in Italy. What Italy has are, for the trial of serious crimes when an abbreviated (fast-track) trial is not chosen, are assize courts which include a panel of 5 lay judges with the 2 professional judges. Contrary to the US system, the lay judges do not deliberate and form a publicly announced verdict as a separate body. Instead, they deliberate and form a verdict together with the professional judges, and the influence of the lay judges on the verdict in actual trials is unclear.

"For nearly four years, Ms. Knox existed in a kind of legal purgatory: acquitted on appeal and trying to live her life, but knowing she could be retried. (In Italy, there is no double jeopardy.) That purgatory ended in 2015, when she was exonerated by Italy’s highest court."

Again, this is misleading. The Italian legal system indeed strictly forbids double jeopardy, but defines it very differently than does the US. In the US, a judgment of acquittal (not guilty) ends a case; the prosecutor cannot appeal. In Italy, a conviction or acquittal by a lower court which is not appealed within a legally-set time limit becomes final as well. However, in Italy, prosecutors are legally allowed to appeal acquittals. Therefore, a case may thus eventually reach the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, whose verdicts of acquittal are final, and whose verdicts of conviction are final except for rare cases of revision judgments.
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 23rd October 2021, 04:16 AM   #1563
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That's very interesting about Mignini and Knox corresponding. It would be wonderful if, some day, Mignini could admit he was wrong, but I'd bet money he will never do that...even if he comes to secretly admit it to himself.

The troll Les Grossman is very busy as he's been for years now trolling any Knox related site he can find. Right now, he's posting in the same Youtube comment section under three different names: Les Grossman, John Doe, and Mike Hunt. Yes..that last one is just his style: reminiscent of a 12 yr. old boy who conflates crudeness with wit.

He is exactly the person I'd like psychologists to examine in a study of why people feel the need to spew such vitriol online about a complete stranger.
Les Grossman is the delinquent toddler of YouTube, "Yamato" is another of his usernames. He never originates any comments of his own, he merely rips off other historic comments from various sources and pastes them into various comments sections on YouTube. When asked to make sense of these comments he is invariably clueless. That's usually when his stablemate Luca Posterino comes in to keep him covered; however, Posterino is only marginally more savvy than Grossman. Alabama Worley is the narcissistic diva of the comments sections. She claims to be a criminal psychologist yet her conclusions are of the hallucinatory variety. Pro-guilt die-hard Rosa Mila is absolute queen of dietrologia on YouTube. Her comments are virtually unpackable imbroglios of speculation, half-truths and downright lies. According to Rosa I have multiple usernames (in fact I have only one i.e. my own) and am responsible for making her comments mysteriously disappear.

These individuals unwittingly expose more of themselves in their comments than they ever reveal about K&S. They are prepared to concede nothing even when confronted with their own lies.

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 23rd October 2021, 11:53 AM   #1564
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,633
I guess congratulations are in order. Apparently, Amanda Knox has given birth to a baby daughter.

It does show that Amanda and her husband are a couple of a hippie nerds. They named their daughter Eureka Muse. For a couple of writers, it seems appropriate.

https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny...outputType=amp
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 01:43 PM   #1565
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Les Grossman is the delinquent toddler of YouTube, "Yamato" is another of his usernames. He never originates any comments of his own, he merely rips off other historic comments from various sources and pastes them into various comments sections on YouTube. When asked to make sense of these comments he is invariably clueless. That's usually when his stablemate Luca Posterino comes in to keep him covered; however, Posterino is only marginally more savvy than Grossman. Alabama Worley is the narcissistic diva of the comments sections. She claims to be a criminal psychologist yet her conclusions are of the hallucinatory variety. Pro-guilt die-hard Rosa Mila is absolute queen of dietrologia on YouTube. Her comments are virtually unpackable imbroglios of speculation, half-truths and downright lies. According to Rosa I have multiple usernames (in fact I have only one i.e. my own) and am responsible for making her comments mysteriously disappear.

These individuals unwittingly expose more of themselves in their comments than they ever reveal about K&S. They are prepared to concede nothing even when confronted with their own lies.

Hoots
I've run into Alabama Worley who claims she is a "criminal behavior analyst". She's as much of a criminal behavior analyst as Miss Represented was a psychologist. She relies on 'statement analysis' as her basis for believing Knox is guilty. Actual forensic evidence doesn't seem to enter her world. I'll tell you one thing: she does NOT like to be contradicted with actual facts.

She was sayin that Knox has 'never made a credible denial" of killed Kercher. I then posted a few of those denials. She said they weren't credible because a credible denial must have "I" + did not/didn't + action. So I quoted and cited this from her Nencini trial letter:

"I am innocent. I didn't kill. I didn't rape. I didn't rob. I didn't plot. I didn't instigate. I didn't kill Meredith."

She came back with, and I'm paraphrasing, that it's not credible because she doesn't say who she didn't kill at first. She could be thinking of a cat, etc. Then she puts all this extraneous filler in between finally saying who she didn't kill. Which isn't credible because she didn't say it first.

You can pick your jaw up off the floor now.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 02:50 AM   #1566
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
I mentioned above a PGP who claims to be a CBA named Alabama Worley. As previously stated she's big on 'statement analysis' and is all over the internet claiming Knox is a narcissist and psychopath. But today, I noticed something very odd about a huge comment she wrote; see if you can spot it. I've C & P'd the relevant parts:

"... we know that investigators were quite thorough, yet not even a single print was detected in Knox' own bedroom."

"There was substantial evidence implicating them; luminol-revealed traces found in the hallway, in Knox’ bedroom,"

" Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found in the hallway and in Knox’ bedroom."

" One was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, and two were compatible with Knox’ right foot."

" and in some samples Knox' peaks were exceedingly higher than Meredith's"

"along with never having confirmed Knox' alibi that she was with him the entire night"

"where multiple traces of Knox' blood and DNA,"

" bring Knox' lamp into the bloody room"

I called her out on either copying and pasting someone else's work or lying about being a CBA from "Alabama". I didn't tell her how I knew but only that a certain 'tell' (as in poker) had given her away as it ran throughout 'her' post. I have to admit I had a good laugh.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 10:08 AM   #1567
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I mentioned above a PGP who claims to be a CBA named Alabama Worley. As previously stated she's big on 'statement analysis' and is all over the internet claiming Knox is a narcissist and psychopath. But today, I noticed something very odd about a huge comment she wrote; see if you can spot it. I've C & P'd the relevant parts:

"... we know that investigators were quite thorough, yet not even a single print was detected in Knox' own bedroom."

"There was substantial evidence implicating them; luminol-revealed traces found in the hallway, in Knox’ bedroom,"

" Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found in the hallway and in Knox’ bedroom."

" One was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, and two were compatible with Knox’ right foot."

" and in some samples Knox' peaks were exceedingly higher than Meredith's"

"along with never having confirmed Knox' alibi that she was with him the entire night"

"where multiple traces of Knox' blood and DNA,"

" bring Knox' lamp into the bloody room"

I called her out on either copying and pasting someone else's work or lying about being a CBA from "Alabama". I didn't tell her how I knew but only that a certain 'tell' (as in poker) had given her away as it ran throughout 'her' post. I have to admit I had a good laugh.
Looks like the usual easily dismissible pro-guilt fodder that gets endlessly recycled on YouTube. Anyone who is genuinely qualified in the field of criminal psychology wouldn't be regurgitating such redundant nonsense anyway. Apart from that they're all very odd to me as is Worley herself.

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 24th October 2021, 10:21 AM   #1568
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Looks like the usual easily dismissible pro-guilt fodder that gets endlessly recycled on YouTube. Anyone who is genuinely qualified in the field of criminal psychology wouldn't be regurgitating such redundant nonsense anyway. Apart from that they're all very odd to me as is Worley herself.

Hoots
Yes, it's the usual fodder but did you spot the 'tell'?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 11:22 AM   #1569
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yes, it's the usual fodder but did you spot the 'tell'?
Are you going to give any hints?

Could the many false, misleading, or irrelevant statements be a clue?
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 24th October 2021, 11:53 AM   #1570
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Are you going to give any hints?

Could the many false, misleading, or irrelevant statements be a clue?
Nope...although that is true.

Hint: Look at the same word used in each example.

I can't believe you didn't spot it immediately! I know I did.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 12:47 PM   #1571
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,235
Knox'
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry 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 24th October 2021, 01:01 PM   #1572
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
Knox'
BINGO! Give the man a stuffed teddy bear!

She's now calling me deranged/crazy as she denies it. This woman, Alabama Worley, is plagiarizing someone else's work and passing it off as her own. Here is some of her post:

"Knox is a felonious pathological liar with an extremely strong motive to spin a narrative, thereby making anything she says entirely unreliable. In fact, she was caught lying repeatedly during her sworn testimony. There is literally no merit in a defense appeal, of which Knox was ultimately acquitted; appeals have no direct relation to the pertinent facts of a case, and are merely technicalities put forth in an effort to free a client or reduce their sentence. It is typical in homicide investigations for evidence to be collected over a series of week's/months as new information is gathered, and Knox supporters notoriously fail to account for evidence belonging to Guede which was collected during the same exact time frame. This goes to the crux of the issue with this case; evidence collected and tested at the same time, by the same technicians and laboratories, are not equally valued. Additionally, all of the Knox supporters openly raise the burden of proof for she and Sollecito, yet lower it substantially for Guede.

As for fingerprints, while a majority are expected to be smudged or unusable, only one clean print inside your own home is extremely unlikely. They found more of Sollecito's prints, whom Knox had only known for mere days, than Knox who'd lived there for nearly two months. Since the drinking glasses, doorframes and closets were tested (among other areas), we know that investigators were quite thorough, yet not even a single print was detected in Knox' own bedroom. Evidence must be considered in its TOTALITY - not by selection of what one WANTS to exist or not, which is precisely what Knox and her groupies do. When compiling the evidence in its totality, which is how a proper investigation is conducted, along with using common sense and logic, there is no question that Knox and Sollecito were rightfully implicated.

There was substantial evidence implicating them; luminol-revealed traces found in the hallway, in Knox’ bedroom, and in Filomena's bedroom where the staged burglary took place, as well as Sollecito’s fingerprints on Kercher’s bedroom door, and on the inside face of Laura's door. Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found in the hallway and in Knox’ bedroom. One was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, and two were compatible with Knox’ right foot. The electropherogram peaks in most of the mixed Knox/Kercher samples were equally high, within a range consistent with blood and/or where blood was confirmed to have been, and in some samples Knox' peaks were exceedingly higher than Meredith's. Applying basic logic to the above evidence leads to only one conclusion - Knox and Meredith were bleeding at the same time. "

You can see what I mean.
Wasn't there a discussion here sometime back about these being mislabeled?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 24th October 2021 at 01:08 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 02:10 PM   #1573
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,151
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
... appeals have no direct relation to the pertinent facts of a case, and are merely technicalities put forth in an effort to free a client or reduce their sentence.
This part is not true, and whoever wrote it should know it is not true. Especially in Italy after a court acquits on the basis of, "the facts do not exist." It is hard to know how clearer Italian judicial decisions can be - that are 100% contrary to what the bizarre writer claims.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It is typical in homicide investigations for evidence to be collected over a series of week's/months as new information is gathered, and Knox supporters notoriously fail to account for evidence belonging to Guede which was collected during the same exact time frame. This goes to the crux of the issue with this case; evidence collected and tested at the same time, by the same technicians and laboratories, are not equally valued. Additionally, all of the Knox supporters openly raise the burden of proof for she and Sollecito, yet lower it substantially for Guede.
Ok, enough. The writer of that bit simply does not know the sequence of evidentiary collection for this case, about which the final court called "a flawed, amnesiac investigation."

For example, within days, solid evidence was found implicating Rudy Guede, even before they knew he'd fled to Germany. That was the basis of his eventual arrest, and the basis for him seeking a 'fast track' trial, instead of a full evidentiary one.

Contrast this with the fact that any forensics against Raffaele that the cops claimed implicated him was collected 46 days after the murder, after the murderroom had been ransacked - disturbed enough so that the bra-clasp in question - first seen under a pillow, was a couple of feet away lying on the floor, collected by the Scientific Police with dirty forensic gloves. How do we know that? Because the Scientific Police filmed themselves doing it.

Subsequently, the ensuing lab work on the bra-clasp did not conform to international standards - as admitted by the lone forensic expert who'd testified in favour of the prosecution. None of that applied to the case against Guede, who'd left his own genetic material inside the victim's vagina.

Similarly for Knox, the final court said that the evidence against her only established that she'd not been in the murderroom, but in another part of the cottage at a later time. Which no one has ever disputed.

Whoever this is you're arguing with, StacyHS, they don't know even the most basic facts of the case.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 24th October 2021 at 02:14 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 24th October 2021, 03:31 PM   #1574
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This part is not true, and whoever wrote it should know it is not true. Especially in Italy after a court acquits on the basis of, "the facts do not exist." It is hard to know how clearer Italian judicial decisions can be - that are 100% contrary to what the bizarre writer claims.

Ok, enough. The writer of that bit simply does not know the sequence of evidentiary collection for this case, about which the final court called "a flawed, amnesiac investigation."

For example, within days, solid evidence was found implicating Rudy Guede, even before they knew he'd fled to Germany. That was the basis of his eventual arrest, and the basis for him seeking a 'fast track' trial, instead of a full evidentiary one.

Contrast this with the fact that any forensics against Raffaele that the cops claimed implicated him was collected 46 days after the murder, after the murderroom had been ransacked - disturbed enough so that the bra-clasp in question - first seen under a pillow, was a couple of feet away lying on the floor, collected by the Scientific Police with dirty forensic gloves. How do we know that? Because the Scientific Police filmed themselves doing it.

Subsequently, the ensuing lab work on the bra-clasp did not conform to international standards - as admitted by the lone forensic expert who'd testified in favour of the prosecution. None of that applied to the case against Guede, who'd left his own genetic material inside the victim's vagina.

Similarly for Knox, the final court said that the evidence against her only established that she'd not been in the murderroom, but in another part of the cottage at a later time. Which no one has ever disputed.

Whoever this is you're arguing with, StacyHS, they don't know even the most basic facts of the case.
Tell be about it! What I find is that the vast majority of PGP who post their "She's a psychopathic killer", "Anyone can see she's guilty!", and "Look at her body language. She's clearly lying,' nonsense don't know anything past the few first months of the case when all the media was filled with the police 'leaks' and misinformation. Some of them don't even know who Guede or Raffaele are, that the two were acquitted twice, and even basic knowledge. One "expert" declared Knox is lying in a video because she said she had only very basic knowledge of Italian at the time of her arrest and 'proved' it by producing a video of Knox speaking fluent Italian years later! She declared she spoke Italian and said Knox's Italian was fluent. I had to explain to her that being immersed in Italian 24/7 while in an Italian prison for a few years will do that to you. These people think they know so much and expose their sheer ignorance every time the post. One even was adamant that Knox had accused TWO Black men of the murder.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 04:11 PM   #1575
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,670
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I mentioned above a PGP who claims to be a CBA named Alabama Worley. As previously stated she's big on 'statement analysis' and is all over the internet claiming Knox is a narcissist and psychopath. But today, I noticed something very odd about a huge comment she wrote; see if you can spot it. I've C & P'd the relevant parts:

"... we know that investigators were quite thorough, yet not even a single print was detected in Knox' own bedroom."

"There was substantial evidence implicating them; luminol-revealed traces found in the hallway, in Knox’ bedroom,"

" Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found in the hallway and in Knox’ bedroom."

" One was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, and two were compatible with Knox’ right foot."

" and in some samples Knox' peaks were exceedingly higher than Meredith's"

"along with never having confirmed Knox' alibi that she was with him the entire night"

"where multiple traces of Knox' blood and DNA,"

" bring Knox' lamp into the bloody room"

I called her out on either copying and pasting someone else's work or lying about being a CBA from "Alabama". I didn't tell her how I knew but only that a certain 'tell' (as in poker) had given her away as it ran throughout 'her' post. I have to admit I had a good laugh.

That sort of crap could have been written by anyone, ceteris paribus

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 24th October 2021, 04:25 PM   #1576
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
....

She's now calling me deranged/crazy as she denies it. This woman, Alabama Worley, is plagiarizing someone else's work and passing it off as her own. ....
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
....
Ok, enough. The writer of that bit simply does not know the sequence of evidentiary collection for this case, about which the final court called "a flawed, amnesiac investigation."
....
Similarly for Knox, the final court said that the evidence against her only established that she'd not been in the murderroom, but in another part of the cottage at a later time. Which no one has ever disputed.

Whoever this is you're arguing with, StacyHS, they don't know even the most basic facts of the case.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
.... These people think they know so much and expose their sheer ignorance every time the post. One even was adamant that Knox had accused TWO Black men of the murder.
Stacyhs, some of those you and Bill Williams are discussing may not wish to acknowledge that they are wrong. Or perhaps, they have a psychological mechanism that fabricates or seizes upon misleading or even false information, that prevents them from acknowledging that they are wrong.

See, for example:

Why Certain People Will Never Admit They Were Wrong

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...hey-were-wrong

This kind of psychological issue, possibly related to narcissistic tendencies, may be a problem in some police and prosecutors who cannot admit that they have mistakenly decided that innocent persons are valid suspects of a crime, and go on to prosecute even when there is no valid evidence. They or their associates may even fabricate evidence in support of the prosecution to avoid admitting to the errors, or to cover up violations of procedural laws committed by the authorities in the investigation. The prosecutor, Mignini, who was in charge of the investigation of the crimes against Kercher, may be a person with such tendencies. He showed similar behavior in his investigation of the Monster of Florence follow-up case.

Last edited by Numbers; 24th October 2021 at 04:27 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 24th October 2021, 04:49 PM   #1577
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
That sort of crap could have been written by anyone, ceteris paribus

And not knowing how to form the "grammatically correct" possessive case of a noun ending in "x" is probably a common "error" in English.

See, for example, among many sources:

http://apostrophe.guide/apostrophe-after-x/

The "correct" form is defined, as in The Chicago Manual of Style, discussed in this blog:

https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.c...ossessive-case

The point is that we can't be sure that other styles may have defined the possessive case differently (as in the fox' coat, rather than the fox's coat).

Last edited by Numbers; 24th October 2021 at 04:56 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 24th October 2021, 06:01 PM   #1578
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
And not knowing how to form the "grammatically correct" possessive case of a noun ending in "x" is probably a common "error" in English.

See, for example, among many sources:

http://apostrophe.guide/apostrophe-after-x/

The "correct" form is defined, as in The Chicago Manual of Style, discussed in this blog:

https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.c...ossessive-case

The point is that we can't be sure that other styles may have defined the possessive case differently (as in the fox' coat, rather than the fox's coat).
We've all discussed the X' problem before and no one could produce a single source that send that is ever a correct possessive form. Not one. Neither of your sources says that either. They all stated an X ending word takes 's.

I have never seen anyone but two people use that form...one being Alabama Worley. She is obviously a well-educated woman who otherwise uses proper punctuation. In this alone does she use improper punctuation. Add to this that she uses the exact same arguments, even the fallacious ones, that this other person uses. For example, she argues about "peak heights" being evidence of blood and that Knox and Kercher were "bleeding at the same time", she describes Knox as a "pathological liar, narcissist, psycho/sociopath", argues that Knox's lamp is evidence, always uses "the luminol revealed footprints" while never mentioning the negative TMB tests, repeats the "Knox lied repeatedly" claim, never mentions Raffaele except in connection to Knox (she's totally fixated on Knox), and uses the phrase "Knox is a convicted felon" and uses "felonious". She states that "Knox supporters notoriously fail to account for evidence belonging to Guede which was collected during the same exact time frame. This goes to the crux of the issue with this case; evidence collected and tested at the same time, by the same technicians and laboratories, are not equally valued. Additionally, all of the Knox supporters openly raise the burden of proof for she and Sollecito, yet lower it substantially for Guede," which is exactly what the other person has argued. And her manner of writing is extremely similar to the other person. She also denies ever going to TJMK. So what are the odds that this person, who is the only one I've ever seen use the same punctuation error repeatedly, would also just happen to be a PGP so similar in her arguments and writing style to this other person? I'd say astronomical.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 24th October 2021 at 06:05 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 06:59 PM   #1579
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Here is another example of the very similar arguments and writing style:

"The RFU’s on Knox’s profile were very high which is almost always an indicator of a blood source, indicating she was bleeding at the same time as the victim, otherwise Meredith’s DNA would surely have swamped Knox’ (as it did Guede’s)."

"The electropherogram peaks in most of the mixed Knox/Kercher samples were equally high, within a range consistent with blood and/or where blood was confirmed to have been, and in some samples Knox' peaks were exceedingly higher than Meredith's. Applying basic logic to the above evidence leads to only one conclusion - Knox and Meredith were bleeding at the same time. "

Notice the emphasis on Knox being a "felon"

"She and her supporters notoriously fail to account for her Calunnia conviction, of which she's STILL A FELON TO THIS DAY as a result of." (the caps are not mine)

Where have I heard that repeated ad infinitum?

This is also from Alabama Worley's post:

"Here's an interesting fact - burglars generally burglarize; the statistics of burglars with no history of violence suddenly deciding to escalate a simple burglary into rape and homicide are nill to nonexistent."

Seems to me I've heard this exact same argument from someone else, too.

AW also goes into the "body was moved much later because of the strap imprint on the tile' bit, too."
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 07:34 PM   #1580
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1. We've all discussed the X' problem before and no one could produce a single source that send that is ever a correct possessive form. Not one. Neither of your sources says that either. They all stated an X ending word takes 's.

I have never seen anyone but two people use that form...one being Alabama Worley. She is obviously a well-educated woman who otherwise uses proper punctuation. In this alone does she use improper punctuation. Add to this that she uses the exact same arguments, even the fallacious ones, that this other person uses. For example, she argues about "peak heights" being evidence of blood and that Knox and Kercher were "bleeding at the same time", she describes Knox as a "pathological liar, narcissist, psycho/sociopath", argues that Knox's lamp is evidence, always uses "the luminol revealed footprints" while never mentioning the negative TMB tests, repeats the "Knox lied repeatedly" claim, never mentions Raffaele except in connection to Knox (she's totally fixated on Knox), and uses the phrase "Knox is a convicted felon" and uses "felonious". She states that "Knox supporters notoriously fail to account for evidence belonging to Guede which was collected during the same exact time frame. This goes to the crux of the issue with this case; evidence collected and tested at the same time, by the same technicians and laboratories, are not equally valued. Additionally, all of the Knox supporters openly raise the burden of proof for she and Sollecito, yet lower it substantially for Guede," which is exactly what the other person has argued. And her manner of writing is extremely similar to the other person. She also denies ever going to TJMK. So what are the odds that this person, who is the only one I've ever seen use the same punctuation error repeatedly, would also just happen to be a PGP so similar in her arguments and writing style to this other person? I'd say astronomical.
1. I did not state that any of the sources I looked at claimed that the form of possessive case for a noun ending in "x" was "____x'" rather than "____x's". I am pointing out that English grammatical rules are not the result of some kind of natural law, but are a human invention which are not constant over time or place. For example, the word formerly written "to-day" currently is generally written as "today". US and British usage and vocabulary have a number of differences.

Some people may write "Knox'" rather than "Knox's" because they confuse the style generally used for forming the possessive of a plural noun ending in "s" with the one for a singular noun ending in "x", since that letter has the sound "ks".

2. I haven't researched the writings of PGP with any degree of thoroughness. I accept that you and others have looked at them in much more detail.

It does seem to me, though, based on my limited knowledge of the PGP, that they mostly do copy the ideas and even the words of each other, where some of these ideas possibly originated with the false police or media reports, or of some one of possibly several PGP initial hoax-generators.*

So I hesitate to say that the writings of two PGPs are similar because of some unique plagiarizing. They're all plagiarizing, it seems.

* For example, several PGP posted that Knox's application to the ECHR would be rejected as submitted too late. They fed off each other's false idea that the initial time for the submission period was the issuance of the short-form verdict, when a little reading of ECHR materials would show that it begins with the publication to the lawyer or applicant of the motivation report.
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 24th October 2021, 08:02 PM   #1581
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,000
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
Knox'
WOW
whoanellie 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 24th October 2021, 08:03 PM   #1582
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,000
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
That sort of crap could have been written by anyone, ceteris paribus

I see what you did there.
whoanellie 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 24th October 2021, 09:27 PM   #1583
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
....

It does seem to me, though, based on my limited knowledge of the PGP, that they mostly do copy the ideas and even the words of each other, where some of these ideas possibly originated with the false police or media reports, or of some one of possibly several PGP initial hoax-generators.*

So I hesitate to say that the writings of two PGPs are similar because of some unique plagiarizing. They're all plagiarizing, it seems.

* For example, several PGP posted that Knox's application to the ECHR would be rejected as submitted too late. They fed off each other's false idea that the initial time for the submission period was the issuance of the short-form verdict, when a little reading of ECHR materials would show that it begins with the publication to the lawyer or applicant of the motivation report.
Here's another ECHR topic where there was "plagiarizing" or other agreement among several PGP. Several, in their posts, interpreted the ECHR statement that one criteria for the acceptance of an application was that the applicant must exhaust domestic remedies as meaning the every path of domestic remedies must be exhausted, and therefore Knox's application would be rejected, because according to the PGP, Knox had not exhausted every path for a remedy.

However, the PGP posters had apparently failed to read through all the ECHR information on this topic. The ECHR explicitly states in summaries of its case-law that the terminology "exhaustion of domestic remedies" means carrying out one path of the practically available domestic remedies to a conclusion. For the case Knox v. Italy, this was satisfied by Knox appealing to the Italian judicial system until her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba was made final by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (in the Chieffi CSC panel judgment).

For those who are familiar with ECHR case-law or the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, this whole line of PGP argument is absurd. In fact, it becomes more absurd when one observes that in Knox v. Italy, the Italian government makes its own absurd claim against the admissibility of the application: not that it was submitted too late for the 6-month deadline, but that it was submitted too early, because the calunnia case was continuing in the Nencini appeals court for determination of the aggravating circumstances. The ECHR summarily dismissed this nonsense:

Quote:
109. The Government submitted that, at the time of the introduction of the application, on 24 November 2013, the applicant's conviction for malicious false accusation was not final and that, therefore, this part of the complaint should be declared inadmissible.

110. The [ECHR] reiterates that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is assessed, with certain exceptions, at the date of submission of the application to the [ECHR]....

111. However, it also recalls that it tolerates the completion of the last level of domestic remedies shortly after the filing of the application, but before it is called upon to decide on the admissibility of the application....

112. In any event, in the present case, the [ECHR] notes that the conviction in question was confirmed by the judgment of the Court of Cassation {the Chieffi CSC panel} filed on 18 June 2013, at the end of three degrees of jurisdiction, and that the reference to the Assize Court of Appeal concerned only the existence of the aggravating circumstance.
Google translation with my help; in-line citations omitted.
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 24th October 2021, 09:48 PM   #1584
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. I did not state that any of the sources I looked at claimed that the form of possessive case for a noun ending in "x" was "____x'" rather than "____x's". I am pointing out that English grammatical rules are not the result of some kind of natural law, but are a human invention which are not constant over time or place. For example, the word formerly written "to-day" currently is generally written as "today". US and British usage and vocabulary have a number of differences.
I understand that, but this is not a case of "this variation is also common and/or acceptable". This is a case of a completely uncommon and unacceptable possessive punctuation. I have never seen it used except by these two people. They are both well-educated and aware of proper possessive usage...except in this one off. I researched x' in British usage, too, and it appeared nowhere. This is not case of color vs. colour or quote marks inside vs outside the ending punctuation.

Quote:
Some people may write "Knox'" rather than "Knox's" because they confuse the style generally used for forming the possessive of a plural noun ending in "s" with the one for a singular noun ending in "x", since that letter has the sound "ks".
I don't buy that. What people commonly do is write Knox's for the plural Knoxes but not for the possessive.

Quote:
2. I haven't researched the writings of PGP with any degree of thoroughness. I accept that you and others have looked at them in much more detail.

It does seem to me, though, based on my limited knowledge of the PGP, that they mostly do copy the ideas and even the words of each other, where some of these ideas possibly originated with the false police or media reports, or of some one of possibly several PGP initial hoax-generators.*

So I hesitate to say that the writings of two PGPs are similar because of some unique plagiarizing. They're all plagiarizing, it seems.

* For example, several PGP posted that Knox's application to the ECHR would be rejected as submitted too late. They fed off each other's false idea that the initial time for the submission period was the issuance of the short-form verdict, when a little reading of ECHR materials would show that it begins with the publication to the lawyer or applicant of the motivation report.
They all feed off of each other with content, but not with that unique and erroneous Knox' formation coupled with almost identical arguments for so many points, a years' long obsession with vilifying Knox on the internet, and a very similar writing style. That's just too many 'coincidences' in my book.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2021, 10:28 PM   #1585
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I understand that, but this is not a case of "this variation is also common and/or acceptable". This is a case of a completely uncommon and unacceptable possessive punctuation. I have never seen it used except by these two people. They are both well-educated and aware of proper possessive usage...except in this one off. I researched x' in British usage, too, and it appeared nowhere. This is not case of color vs. colour or quote marks inside vs outside the ending punctuation.



I don't buy that. What people commonly do is write Knox's for the plural Knoxes but not for the possessive.



They all feed off of each other with content, but not with that unique and erroneous Knox' formation coupled with almost identical arguments for so many points, a years' long obsession with vilifying Knox on the internet, and a very similar writing style. That's just too many 'coincidences' in my book.
OK, suppose that the hypothesis that one PGP copied essentially word-for-word from another, without attribution, is correct.

I don't see how that's relevant to the final judgment of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation that Knox and Sollecito did not commit any of the charged crimes against Kercher, based upon its objective reasoning that the total invalidity of the alleged evidence failed to support a conviction.

I don't see how that's relevant to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that Italy violated Knox's rights to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba by denying her the right to a lawyer and to a fair interpreter during the interrogation, and denied her the right to have her credible claims, repeatedly made to the authorities, of degrading treatment during the interrogation, effectively investigated by independent authorities acting in an official capacity.

In terms of the PGP statements, plagiarized nonsense remains nonsense, and endlessly repeated nonsense remains nonsense.
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 24th October 2021, 11:02 PM   #1586
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
OK, suppose that the hypothesis that one PGP copied essentially word-for-word from another, without attribution, is correct.

I don't see how that's relevant to the final judgment of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation that Knox and Sollecito did not commit any of the charged crimes against Kercher, based upon its objective reasoning that the total invalidity of the alleged evidence failed to support a conviction.

I don't see how that's relevant to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that Italy violated Knox's rights to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba by denying her the right to a lawyer and to a fair interpreter during the interrogation, and denied her the right to have her credible claims, repeatedly made to the authorities, of degrading treatment during the interrogation, effectively investigated by independent authorities acting in an official capacity.

In terms of the PGP statements, plagiarized nonsense remains nonsense, and endlessly repeated nonsense remains nonsense.
The problem I see is when the PIP start taking the PGP nonsense seriously.

For example, consider the long discussions on this forum about the meaning of acquittals under Italian law, under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1 compared to paragraph 2. The PGP position that these were two different standards or types of acquittal was nonsense. Furthermore, some posters, possibly PGP, brought up the Scottish verdicts of "not proven" and "not guilty" as an analogy of two different kinds of acquittal, and some PIP may have believed that this was somehow correct.

But the two Scottish verdicts are as different as suggested in the idiom "six of one or a half-dozen of the other". Here's the Scottish government's statement on the equivalence of these two verdicts*:

Quote:
Not proven or not guilty

This means there was not enough evidence to prove the case 'beyond reasonable doubt' or there were other reasons why the accused was not found guilty.

Both these verdicts have the same effect and mean the accused will be excused from the court – they will be free to leave.
Under ECHR case-law or current** Italian procedural law, there are no "partially acquitted" or "acquitted due to insufficient evidence" verdicts. There are only acquittals, and even dismissals are legally equivalent to acquittals.

Under Italian law, CPP Article 530, a reason must be inserted in the motivation report. That reason (or specification) must conform with the language in Article 530 that specifies five different reasons for acquittal. The reasons that are relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case are "the accused did not commit the act (of the crime)" (for the crimes against Kercher), and "the act (of the crime) did not occur" (for the charges accusing Knox of calunnia against the police and Mignini). Again, "insufficient evidence to convict" is not a reason under current Italian law.***


* Source:

https://www.mygov.scot/criminal-court-case/verdicts

** That is, relevant to the time of the Knox - Sollecito case.

*** Source:

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...-i/art530.html
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 24th October 2021, 11:53 PM   #1587
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
OK, suppose that the hypothesis that one PGP copied essentially word-for-word from another, without attribution, is correct.

I don't see how that's relevant to the final judgment of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation that Knox and Sollecito did not commit any of the charged crimes against Kercher, based upon its objective reasoning that the total invalidity of the alleged evidence failed to support a conviction.

I don't see how that's relevant to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that Italy violated Knox's rights to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba by denying her the right to a lawyer and to a fair interpreter during the interrogation, and denied her the right to have her credible claims, repeatedly made to the authorities, of degrading treatment during the interrogation, effectively investigated by independent authorities acting in an official capacity.

In terms of the PGP statements, plagiarized nonsense remains nonsense, and endlessly repeated nonsense remains nonsense.
It's not relevant at all...which is why I never said anything even close to that. I'm rather confused as to how you inferred I did.

I totally agree with you last statement about it remaining nonsense.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 24th October 2021 at 11:54 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2021, 06:02 AM   #1588
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It's not relevant at all...which is why I never said anything even close to that. I'm rather confused as to how you inferred I did.

I totally agree with you last statement about it remaining nonsense.
Did I write that you had said something specifically? I offered the hypothesis as a suggestion. There could be other hypotheses.

I also posed the question as to the relevance of that hypothesis to the case.

At this point in the case, I prefer to focus on the actions of the Italian police, judiciary and government, as well as those of the ECHR and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

I suggest it is likely that the PGP, although probably dwindling in postings, will be a continuing source of nonsensical misinformation.

Last edited by Numbers; 25th October 2021 at 06:05 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 25th October 2021, 11:16 AM   #1589
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It's not relevant at all...which is why I never said anything even close to that. I'm rather confused as to how you inferred I did.

I totally agree with you last statement about it remaining nonsense.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
OK, suppose that the hypothesis that one PGP copied essentially word-for-word from another, without attribution, is correct.

I don't see how that's relevant to the final judgment of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation that Knox and Sollecito did not commit
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Did I write that you had said something specifically? I offered the hypothesis as a suggestion. There could be other hypotheses.

I also posed the question as to the relevance of that hypothesis to the case.

At this point in the case, I prefer to focus on the actions of the Italian police, judiciary and government, as well as those of the ECHR and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

I suggest it is likely that the PGP, although probably dwindling in postings, will be a continuing source of nonsensical misinformation.
This is an example of miscommunication then. When I read "I don't see how that's relevant to" it seemed to me that you were saying "I" thought it was relevant somehow which is why I said I was confused by how you inferred that. I still don't really understand the jump from PGP copying from each other to the final SC acquittal. Regardless, it's ironed out now so no problem.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2021, 08:03 AM   #1590
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's another ECHR topic where there was "plagiarizing" or other agreement among several PGP. ....

However, the PGP posters had apparently failed to read through all the ECHR information on this topic. ....

For those who are familiar with ECHR case-law or the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, this whole line of PGP argument is absurd. ....
There is one claim by Knox against Italy in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy where PGP, again apparently agreeing or copying each other, did accurately anticipate Italy's objections to the admissibility of the claim. That is, for Knox's claim that Italy had violated her rights under Convention Article 3, the PGP (falsely or incorrectly) claimed that it would be inadmissible because Knox had, in their view, not submitted the proper complaints to the Italian authorities.

Italy indeed made that claim for inadmissibility:

Quote:
116. The {Italian} Government submitted firstly that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because she had not lodged any complaint with the public prosecutor or the civil authorities. According to it, the applicant could also have complained of the pressure she claimed to have suffered at the time of her hearing or of the hearing validating her arrest before the judge for the preliminary investigations.
The ECHR notes the following response from Knox and her lawyers:

Quote:
117. The applicant claims to have denounced the treatment she allegedly suffered several times during the proceedings, in particular during the hearings, including that of 13 March 2009 {during the Massei court trial proceedings}
And the ECHR prefaces its examination of this issue with the following statement:

Quote:
118. The [ECHR] considers that the central issue in the present case is closely linked to the substance of the complaints raised by the applicant, especially as to whether the applicant benefited from an effective investigation, as required by Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, it decides to join this objection to the merits.

119. It considers, in the light of all the arguments of the parties, that these complaints raise serious issues of fact and law that can not be resolved at this stage of the examination of the application, but require examination in the merits. It follows that these complaints can not be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground of inadmissibility has been raised.
Now, it seems to me that some PGP apparently consider this ECHR action irregular, perhaps because the ECHR almost always considers admissibility of a claim before examining the merits. However, that ECHR method is optional, and not infrequently the ECHR does determine the admissibility as part of its examination of the merits. Either procedure is allowed under Convention Article 29 (Articles 27 and 28 refer to applications of a repetitive or exceeding obvious nature, that are decided by a single judge or committee of 3 judges, respectively):

Quote:
ARTICLE 29

Decisions by Chambers on admissibility and merits

1. If no decision is taken under Article 27 or 28, or no judgment rendered under Article 28, a Chamber shall decide on the admissibility and merits of individual applications submitted under Article 34. The decision on admissibility may be taken separately.
....
The ECHR judgment then proceeds, in paragraphs 120 -122, to summarize the arguments of Knox and the Italian Government on the merits, and then provide its examination of the merits and thus the admissibility, with conclusions, in paragraphs 123 - 140.

Summarizing, in accordance with well-established ECHR precedent, a complaint of mistreatment made in the setting of a judicial proceeding such as a trial is considered an "official" complaint under international law for Council of Europe member states such as Italy. When credible, as in this case, such complaints obligate a member state to fulfill its duties to launch an effective investigation of the allegations of the credible complaint by independent authorities. The investigation must be capable of resulting in proceedings that can hold individuals who have committed misconduct violating Article 3 responsible under law.

Here's the relevant ECHR judgment text (translated), with inline citations to the case-law omitted:

Quote:
135. Having regard to all of those circumstances, the Court [ECHR] considers that the facts complained of by the applicant give rise to an arguable claim that she was subjected to degrading treatment while she was entirely under the control of the police, attaining the minimum seriousness required to fall under Article 3 of the Convention....

136. This provision required that an effective official inquiry be conducted in the present case, in order to lead to the identification and punishment of those who may be responsible. In that regard, the Court can only find that, despite the applicant's repeated complaints, the treatment she denounced was not the subject of any investigation (... see also the findings of the Perugia court in its judgment of 22 March 2013, paragraph 101). It notes in particular that the request for transmission of the {court} documents to the prosecution made by the applicant's defense on 13 March 2009 remained unanswered (paragraph 47).

137. The Court further notes that, as a result of that hearing, the applicant herself was the subject of criminal proceedings for malicious false accusations {again, but} this time, against the authorities who she had accused of causing the infringement of her rights protected by Article 3 of the Convention. It observes that, at the end of that proceedings, the applicant was also acquitted, since there was no evidence that her allegations deviated from the reality of the facts. The Court also notes that, obviously, this latter proceedings {being a criminal trial of the applicant} could not constitute an effective inquiry, required by Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the complaints which the applicant raises before the Court.

138. It must therefore be concluded that the applicant did not benefit from an investigation capable of clarifying the facts and possible responsibilities in this case. Article 3 of the Convention, under its procedural limb, was therefore violated in this case.

139. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government's preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

140. With regard to the material part of the complaint, the Court considers that it has no evidence to show that the applicant has been subjected to the inhuman and degrading treatment of which she complains {because of the failure of the Italian Government to have conducted an investigation or lack of other independent evidence}. It therefore concludes {because its case-law for such claims require proof beyond a reasonable doubt} that there is no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its material aspect.
Sources:

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

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
Translation by Google with my help

Last edited by Numbers; 26th October 2021 at 09:19 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 26th October 2021, 08:38 PM   #1591
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There is one claim by Knox against Italy in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy where PGP, again apparently agreeing or copying each other, did accurately anticipate Italy's objections to the admissibility of the claim. That is, for Knox's claim that Italy had violated her rights under Convention Article 3, the PGP (falsely or incorrectly) claimed that it would be inadmissible because Knox had, in their view, not submitted the proper complaints to the Italian authorities.

Italy indeed made that claim for inadmissibility:

Quote:
116. The {Italian} Government submitted firstly that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because she had not lodged any complaint with the public prosecutor or the civil authorities. According to it, the applicant could also have complained of the pressure she claimed to have suffered at the time of her hearing or of the hearing validating her arrest before the judge for the preliminary investigations.
....
While perhaps one may assume that the PGP would not be entirely familiar with the ECHR case-law, although some relevant parts had been posted in this forum, why would the Italian Government, which should be aware of the ECHR case-law, make the argument on admissibility as shown above, only to have it be dismissed through the examination of the merits of Knox's claim?

Italy has considerable experience in this area of ECHR case-law, as the case Labita v. Italy 26772/95 06/04/2000, in paragraph 131, lays out the most fundamental aspects of the obligation of the state to effectively and thorough investigate credible claims of mistreatment by police or other agents of the government.

Because of the importance of Convention Article 2 and Article 3 under international law (among the Council of Europe states), a member state must launch an investigation of credible claims of mistreatment even if the allegations are brought out in a statement in a court trial rather than in some type of official formal report, as shown, for example, in the ECHR case Kaciu and Kotorri v. Albania 33192/07 25/06/2013, which the ECHR cites in its final judgment Knox v. Italy in paragraph 136.

Here's the relevant parts of Kaciu and Kotorri v. Albania (inline citations omitted):

Quote:
82. The Government argued that the first applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies because he did not formally complain to the prosecutor and that the complaint had been lodged more than six months after the alleged ill-treatment. The first applicant maintained that he was afraid to complain to the prosecutor for fear of being ill-treated again.

83. The Court considers that the Government’s objections are connected to the merits of the first applicant’s complaint and therefore decides to join them to the merits.

84. As this complaint is not inadmissible on any other ground, it must therefore be declared admissible.
....

The Court’s [ECHR's] assessment

87. Article 3 enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic society. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, irrespective of the victim’s behaviour. Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation ....

....

93. Furthermore, where an individual makes an arguable claim that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. Such an investigation should be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible ....

....

97. ... [T]he applicant consistently and firmly maintained throughout the whole of the domestic proceedings that he had been brutally beaten up. Even though the authorities were made aware of the applicant’s beating, the prosecutor did not order a medical examination, seek other evidence, open a criminal investigation or, indeed, take any other steps to investigate the applicant’s repeated and serious allegations. Nor did the judge at the initial hearing request that the applicant’s clear physical discomfort be investigated. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the applicant to consider that, his defence to the criminal charges apart, other domestic remedies were ineffective .... On that account, the Government’s preliminary objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed. Since the applicant’s allegations had been raised as part of his defence at all stages of the criminal proceedings, the introduction of this complaint within six-months of the end of those proceedings (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 6 February 2007) was within the time-limit contained in Article 35 § 1.
Sources:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58559

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-121770
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 28th October 2021, 08:29 PM   #1592
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,151
Trial by Liar, by Karen Pruett

I've known three people (one in Germany, one in British Columbia) who assembled encyclopedic collections, comprehensive of info to do with the horrible 2007 murder in Perugia, and subsequent trials.

Karen Pruett is one of them. She has assembled her collection into a book, Trial by Liar, available at this link:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09KMLV2LW
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 28th October 2021 at 08:36 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 1st November 2021, 09:14 AM   #1593
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
One aspect of ECHR case-law which some posters here may not fully acknowledge is that if the ECHR considers a final judgment by a respondent state's court to be "unreasonable" and that judgment has adversely affected the applicant, the ECHR will declare on that basis a violation of Convention Article 6 by the respondent state. Furthermore, a respondent state court is not free to misinterpret an ECHR final judgment to adversely affect an applicant; such misinterpretation is a violation of Convention Article 6.

This is of potential importance for the Knox - Sollecito case in relation, for example, to any future revision court refusing to dismiss the charge or to acquit Knox of the charge of calunnia against Lumumba.

SERRANO CONTRERAS v. SPAIN (No. 2) 2236/19 26/10/2021 demonstrates an application of that ECHR case-law. Here are relevant excerpts from the ECHR's Legal Summary (inline citations omitted):

Quote:
As regards the Supreme Court’s reasoning, it had correctly stated that the finding of a violation by the Court [ECHR] did not give rise to any automatic right to the reopening of proceedings and that it might even be possible to remedy a violation found by the Court by means of a partial reopening of proceedings, as the Supreme Court envisaged in the present case. Nevertheless, where, in its examination of an extraordinary remedy, a domestic court determines a criminal charge and gives reasons for its decision, those reasons must satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1.... In cases as the present one, the domestic court’s presentation of the Court’s earlier findings should not be grossly arbitrary or even amount to denial of justice, resulting in an effect of defeating the applicant’s attempt to have the proceedings against him examined in the light of the Court’s judgment in his previous case....

Thus, the Supreme Court, when making its own interpretation as to the scope and meaning of the Court’s findings in the judgment of March 2012, had gone beyond the national authorities’ margin of appreciation and distorted the conclusions of the Court’s judgment; the impugned proceedings had therefore fallen short of the requirements of a “fair trial” under Article 6 § 1.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Sources:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-13456

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-212691

Last edited by Numbers; 1st November 2021 at 09:22 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 1st November 2021, 01:16 PM   #1594
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I've known three people (one in Germany, one in British Columbia) who assembled encyclopedic collections, comprehensive of info to do with the horrible 2007 murder in Perugia, and subsequent trials.

Karen Pruett is one of them. She has assembled her collection into a book, Trial by Liar, available at this link:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09KMLV2LW
I bought it a couple days ago. I haven't read it yet but I'm sure it will be good.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 01:30 PM   #1595
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
I just checked TJMK. For a site supposedly dedicated to Meredith Kercher, this is the second year in a row (that I know of) that they don't even bother to mention that today is the anniversary of her murder. Instead, there is yet another vile and loathsome 'article' on Knox full of twisted perversions of the truth and just downright lies.

At the top of the main page they claim that Knox accused Lumumba "of rape & murder repeatedly under no duress." These people are truly delusional.


It's written by "The TJMK Main Posters". I don't blame them for not giving their names. I wouldn't want to be associated with that venom either. These people are just sick.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 03:03 PM   #1596
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,670
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I just checked TJMK. For a site supposedly dedicated to Meredith Kercher, this is the second year in a row (that I know of) that they don't even bother to mention that today is the anniversary of her murder. Instead, there is yet another vile and loathsome 'article' on Knox full of twisted perversions of the truth and just downright lies.

At the top of the main page they claim that Knox accused Lumumba "of rape & murder repeatedly under no duress." These people are truly delusional.


It's written by "The TJMK Main Posters". I don't blame them for not giving their names. I wouldn't want to be associated with that venom either. These people are just sick.

Why do I get the feeling that this means nothing more than Quennell alone, seeking to convey the impression that his cesspit of a website is some sort of thriving community of "all the talents" - rather than what it is in reality by now (ie Quennell typing out unhinged rants and misinterpretations, then "replying" to his own posts again and again, with sideshow comment contributions from a very small cadre of damaged fellow travellers)? He's done this sort of weird and phoney pluralisation crap many times before, after all.

And yes, it's precisely 14 years now since Meredith Kercher was murdered - almost certainly by Guede acting alone. Fourteen years. Wow.

At least by now - but far later than it should have been - Knox and Sollecito have been properly vindicated and exonerated; and it's really only a matter of tying up the final loose ends of this sad, sorry saga: most notably, of course, waiting for Italy to apply the ECHR remedy and acquit Knox on the criminal slander charge, together with (hopefully) more appropriate compensation settlements with both Knox and Sollecito. I hold out no hope whatsoever that the other outstanding issue - the holding to account of the obvious suspects in the PMs' office and in the police - will ever take place, even though it very clearly should......
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 1st November 2021, 04:09 PM   #1597
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Why do I get the feeling that this means nothing more than Quennell alone, seeking to convey the impression that his cesspit of a website is some sort of thriving community of "all the talents" - rather than what it is in reality by now (ie Quennell typing out unhinged rants and misinterpretations, then "replying" to his own posts again and again, with sideshow comment contributions from a very small cadre of damaged fellow travellers)? He's done this sort of weird and phoney pluralisation crap many times before, after all.

And yes, it's precisely 14 years now since Meredith Kercher was murdered - almost certainly by Guede acting alone. Fourteen years. Wow.

At least by now - but far later than it should have been - Knox and Sollecito have been properly vindicated and exonerated; and it's really only a matter of tying up the final loose ends of this sad, sorry saga: most notably, of course, waiting for Italy to apply the ECHR remedy and acquit Knox on the criminal slander charge, together with (hopefully) more appropriate compensation settlements with both Knox and Sollecito. I hold out no hope whatsoever that the other outstanding issue - the holding to account of the obvious suspects in the PMs' office and in the police - will ever take place, even though it very clearly should......
I agree...it's likely Quennell all by himself. No comments on it as yet. If it's anything like his last few "I need to be relevant so pay attention to me dammt" articles, it will be only him and, maybe, that other kook 'Hopeful' who bother to comment.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 11:37 PM   #1598
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I just checked TJMK. For a site supposedly dedicated to Meredith Kercher, this is the second year in a row (that I know of) that they don't even bother to mention that today is the anniversary of her murder. Instead, there is yet another vile and loathsome 'article' on Knox full of twisted perversions of the truth and just downright lies.

At the top of the main page they claim that Knox accused Lumumba "of rape & murder repeatedly under no duress." These people are truly delusional.


It's written by "The TJMK Main Posters". I don't blame them for not giving their names. I wouldn't want to be associated with that venom either. These people are just sick.
How (not) surprising that the TJMK "Main Posters" disagree with the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy.

Did not Quennell or someone at TJMK once post claiming that they had hundreds of lawyers supporting their delusions? Or was that someone at another PGP site?
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 1st November 2021, 11:44 PM   #1599
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,844
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
How (not) surprising that the TJMK "Main Posters" disagree with the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy.

Did not Quennell or someone at TJMK once post claiming that they had hundreds of lawyers supporting their delusions? Or was that someone at another PGP site?
Yes, that was Quennell. The 2015 annulment will be overturned for not being legal about the same time that Raff and Andrew Gumbel publicly apologize to Mignini. Any day now.....yep...any minute....
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 06:17 AM   #1600
AnimalFriendly
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 263
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I agree...it's likely Quennell all by himself. No comments on it as yet. If it's anything like his last few "I need to be relevant so pay attention to me dammt" articles, it will be only him and, maybe, that other kook 'Hopeful' who bother to comment.
PQ did put something up about the anniversary, conveniently dated 11/1/21, although in all likelihood it was posted either today or, if it was indeed yesterday, late in the evening.

As for "Hopeful", she bid her fellow nutcases goodbye in a comment the other day, saying how she'd promised to stop "commenting" once Knox had a child. A lot of times, she appeared to me to be the most disturbed of the (very small) bunch. Which is saying plenty.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 10:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.