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 17th November 2020, 07:49 AM   #201
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
The London Library is also a thing, too, don't forget. Unfortunately it's closed at the moment, but it's a fantastic repository of old newspapers and periodicals which is great fun to wander around.


Indeed. But it was/is The British Library which has so frequently been championed within Vixen's posts
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 17th November 2020, 07:53 AM   #202
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is the way the legal system works. If a court of law determines something is a fact then it is tough titties if someone disputes it.

For example, few people dispute OJ Simpson was responsible for the murder of Nicola and her boyfriend so it was hard luck he got away with it. But that is the legal position.

In the Kercher case, despite Sollecito's relatively wealthy father throwing a lot of money to support his son with the most expensive barristers and Knox getting support from Trump and Friends of Amanda Knox, the merits court and the appeals court DID find the pair guilty as charged. The pair had their sentences anulled solely on the basis of a three-day sitting by a Supreme
Court for political reasons. The SC has no power to oveturn facts found by a merits court so therefore the fact of the merits/semi-merits appeal court of a staged burglary and multiple attackers stands, the facts support this conclusion 100%.

Police are not looking for the other attackers.

This tells you everything you need to know about Knox and Sollecito, whose counsel agreed there were multiple attackers as indicated by the evidence and hence they brought in Alessi - a convicted childkidnapper and murderer - and Aviello a hardened Mafia Thug serving SEVENTEEN YEARS to support as their alternative theory of who the other attackers might be other than themselves.


"Nicola and her boyfriend".

smh

(Did someone round here once boast about some sort of forensic accuracy of their research? )
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 17th November 2020, 07:54 AM   #203
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For example, few people dispute OJ Simpson was responsible for the murder of Nicola and her boyfriend so it was hard luck he got away with it. But that is the legal position.
I dispute it. Her name was Nicole, not Nicola, and Ron Brown wasn't her boyfriend.
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 08:04 AM   #204
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I dispute it. Her name was Nicole, not Nicola, and Ron Brown wasn't her boyfriend.

*whispers* Ron Goldman

(Nicole Brown-Simpson)
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 17th November 2020, 09:42 AM   #205
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Gah!!!

Isn't there an internet law that says that anyone who corrects somebody will also make a mistake?
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 10:20 AM   #206
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is the way the legal system works. If a court of law determines something is a fact then it is tough titties if someone disputes it.



For example, few people dispute OJ Simpson was responsible for the murder of Nicola and her boyfriend so it was hard luck he got away with it. But that is the legal position.



In the Kercher case, despite Sollecito's relatively wealthy father throwing a lot of money to support his son with the most expensive barristers and Knox getting support from Trump and Friends of Amanda Knox, the merits court and the appeals court DID find the pair guilty as charged. The pair had their sentences anulled solely on the basis of a three-day sitting by a Supreme

Court for political reasons. The SC has no power to oveturn facts found by a merits court so therefore the fact of the merits/semi-merits appeal court of a staged burglary and multiple attackers stands, the facts support this conclusion 100%.



Police are not looking for the other attackers.



This tells you everything you need to know about Knox and Sollecito, whose counsel agreed there were multiple attackers as indicated by the evidence and hence they brought in Alessi - a convicted childkidnapper and murderer - and Aviello a hardened Mafia Thug serving SEVENTEEN YEARS to support as their alternative theory of who the other attackers might be other than themselves.
I am shocked Vixen.
Isn't it a judicial fact that OJ is not guilty? Do you dispute that?
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 17th November 2020, 11:27 AM   #207
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In the Kercher case, despite Sollecito's relatively wealthy father throwing a lot of money to support his son with the most expensive barristers and Knox getting support from Trump and Friends of Amanda Knox, the merits court and the appeals court DID find the pair guilty as charged. The pair had their sentences anulled solely on the basis of a three-day sitting by a Supreme Court for political reasons. The SC has no power to oveturn facts found by a merits court so therefore the fact of the merits/semi-merits appeal court of a staged burglary and multiple attackers stands, the facts support this conclusion 100%.
Sigh. One more time around this merry-go-round.
- One of the merits courts found them not guilty.

- The Supreme Court does not sit "for political reasons". If it does then it is up to you to provide the evidence. And while you're at it, you have to demonstrate that the 2013 Supreme Court somehow was sitting "not for political reasons" when they overturned the Hellmann acquittals.

- but at least you are now conceding that the finding of guilt had been annuled. That's something.

- for the umpteenth time, the Supreme Court did not overturn facts. They ruled that the facts as at the Nencini trial did not merit a conviction.

- what is a "semi-merits" trial? Now you're just inventing things.

- "staged burglary and multiple attackers" are judicial facts, found at a fast-track trial in which no evidence was presented. But Guede and the prosecution had motive to agree to those two things, as LondonJohn wrote above.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Police are not looking for the other attackers.
One of the reasons this is so is that one of the police in question, Napoleoni, is herself in prison. Maybe she's looking for those other attackers in there!

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This tells you everything you need to know about Knox and Sollecito, whose counsel agreed there were multiple attackers as indicated by the evidence and hence they brought in Alessi - a convicted childkidnapper and murderer - and Aviello a hardened Mafia Thug serving SEVENTEEN YEARS to support as their alternative theory of who the other attackers might be other than themselves.
No, this is not what happened. What is probably the closest relevance that those judicial facts had on AK and RS was as Judge Hellmann wrote in acquitting the pair:
Originally Posted by Hellmann in 2011
However, the analysis of each of the individual elements, on which the complicity
hypothesis rests, leads one to doubt the necessary participation of more than one person in
the perpetration of the charged felonies and to exclude, moreover, that, even under this
single aspect (complicity of persons), the judgement concerning Rudy Guede could
represent a determinative element of weight for the purpose of ascertaining the
responsibility of the current defendants; and in any case, even assuming the hypothesis of
the necessary complicity of persons as being true, the judgement does not, through this,
assume any determinative probative value in recognising the current defendants as Rudy
Guede’s accomplices.

From which it follows that the above‐mentioned [tale] judgement, agreed with [by this
Court] as far as Rudy Guede’s responsibility is concerned (which certainly does not cease
to exist [viene meno] by holding the single‐agent hypothesis the most [maggiormente]
reliable) since the evidence against him is numerous and unambiguous (his DNA found
not on one trace [reperto] but on multiple traces, including the vaginal swab, the footprint
on the pillow and [29] the blood on the sports top worn by the victim, the shoe prints but
also his prior behaviour, accustomed to entering into other’s apartments to rob, armed
with a knife, as well as molesting young people), does not assume any probative relevance
at all as regards ascertaining the responsibility of the current defendants.
ETA - please also note that in overturning Hellmann's acquittal, the 2013 Supreme Court made no mention of this as one of the reasons why. The chief reason stated by the 2013 Supreme Court for overturning Hellmann's acquittal was that Hellmann had allowed Conti and Vecchiotti, the independent DNA analysts, to make the de facto legal decision to not test the extra DNA sample on the knife.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 17th November 2020 at 11:33 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 11:34 AM   #208
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 794
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is the way the legal system works. If a court of law determines something is a fact then it is tough titties if someone disputes it.

For example, few people dispute OJ Simpson was responsible for the murder of Nicola and her boyfriend so it was hard luck he got away with it. But that is the legal position.

In the Kercher case, despite Sollecito's relatively wealthy father throwing a lot of money to support his son with the most expensive barristers and Knox getting support from Trump and Friends of Amanda Knox, the merits court and the appeals court DID find the pair guilty as charged. The pair had their sentences anulled solely on the basis of a three-day sitting by a Supreme
Court for political reasons. The SC has no power to oveturn facts found by a merits court so therefore the fact of the merits/semi-merits appeal court of a staged burglary and multiple attackers stands, the facts support this conclusion 100%.

Police are not looking for the other attackers.

This tells you everything you need to know about Knox and Sollecito, whose counsel agreed there were multiple attackers as indicated by the evidence and hence they brought in Alessi - a convicted childkidnapper and murderer - and Aviello a hardened Mafia Thug serving SEVENTEEN YEARS to support as their alternative theory of who the other attackers might be other than themselves.
This is from the appeal document written by Amanda's defence for the Hellman trial. Could Vixen highlight the part where the defence agree with multiple attackers.

"Experts cannot rule out that Meredith was murdered by one person
The opinion of the experts at trial was that the number, type and location of knife wounds does not prove the presence of multiple assailants. The court ignores these experts and simply concludes that there were several attackers in the room. This conclusion goes against the evidence.

The blood stain patterns are more consistent with a single attacker. Dr. Lalli, the Coroner that performed the autopsy, was unable to say that there was clearly more than one attacker.
Dr. Bacci, a medical examiner testifying for the prosecution, reaches the same conclusion.
“The biological data cannot tell us if it was one or more persons who killed Meredith.”

Dr. Liviero, a police doctor testifying for the prosecution, states
“a single attacker could have done it.”

Dr. Torre, testifying for the defense, sees only one attacker.
“There was a scuffle first then stabbing, that could have been from one person.”

Dr. Cingolani, a forensic expert, also said one person could have been involved.
“She was grabbed by the neck very violently. Bruising on the face and nose trying to silence her, but there is no other evidence of holding her down. Her left elbow shows signs she injured it when she fell down onto the floor. The other injuries are very small. During group violence, injuries are usually bigger and more striking. The violent grasping of her throat, neck and face rules out being held down by others. If there were three people, there would be no need to use two knives.”

The existence of defense wounds is consistent with one attacker

The defense argues that the knife wounds found on Meredith are consistent with one attacker. All three knife wounds are substantially similar in direction. Meredith could not grab the knife as it fully entered her neck because it was pushed in all the way to the handle. Dr. Torre indicates that all injuries found on the victim are consistent with one attacker. According to Dr. Torre, one attacker immobilized Meredith by grabbing her neck with his left hand, and then stabbing with his right hand.

The position of Meredith during the attack does not lend itself to multiple attackers. The court completely disregarded the BPA or Blood Pattern Analysis. This shows that Meredith’s height of the “convergence zone” was 40cm above the floor and 30 to 33cm from the wall of the room. It is inconceivable that she was over 60cm above the floor per expert Dr. Camana (an expert with Rome's criminal forensic division). Meredith was not standing when she was attacked. She was lying on the ground, but not straight down and was not on her knees or standing.

Hair formations were found under Meredith's fingernails. Mitochondrial DNA exam should be done to determine who this belongs to. This test was not done. This shows that Meredith broke free and grabbed her attacker's hair to try and stop the attack."

If Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith with Guede could Vixen explain why there are massive holes in this scenario.


• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 12:33 PM   #209
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She was 5'6".

You haven't read the autopsy report; you are simply making up an alternate version to suit your narrative.
Apparently neither have you. From the Massei Report pg 131:

Quote:
With respect to these indications given in Dr. Lalli's report, Professor Introna stated that Dr. Lalli was not able to weigh the body. He observed that for a girl whose height was one metre and sixty centimetres, weight tables predict a normal weight of slightly over the 55 kilos guessed by Dr. Lalli.
One meter, sixty centimeters is 5' 3" and 55 kilos is 21 lbs. So I was correct. I'm not the one making up an alternative version.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
"Nicola and her boyfriend".

smh

(Did someone round here once boast about some sort of forensic accuracy of their research? )
Why yes...yes, they 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 17th November 2020, 12:58 PM   #210
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is the way the legal system works. If a court of law determines something is a fact then it is tough titties if someone disputes it.

For example, few people dispute OJ Simpson was responsible for the murder of Nicola and her boyfriend so it was hard luck he got away with it. But that is the legal position.

In the Kercher case, despite Sollecito's relatively wealthy father throwing a lot of money to support his son with the most expensive barristers and Knox getting support from Trump and Friends of Amanda Knox, the merits court and the appeals court DID find the pair guilty as charged. The pair had their sentences anulled solely on the basis of a three-day sitting by a Supreme Court for political reasons. The SC has no power to oveturn facts found by a merits court so therefore the fact of the merits/semi-merits appeal court of a staged burglary and multiple attackers stands, the facts support this conclusion 100%.

Police are not looking for the other attackers.

This tells you everything you need to know about Knox and Sollecito, whose counsel agreed there were multiple attackers as indicated by the evidence and hence they brought in Alessi - a convicted childkidnapper and murderer - and Aviello a hardened Mafia Thug serving SEVENTEEN YEARS to support as their alternative theory of who the other attackers might be other than themselves.
Let's look at the highlighted parts:

1) Another 'fact' pulled straight from the Vixen Colon Library.

2) Police are not looking for other attackers because they know they do not exist. Whose fingerprints, DNA, footprints, or shoe prints do you suggest they try and match since they are non-existent?

Once again, the multiple attackers "evidence" was accepted by Micheli without question and without cross examination of the witness who was incredibly unreliable. To believe that a woman who was hard of hearing could hear a scream through closed double paned windows from a thick stone walled cottage across and below the street whose only open window was facing the opposite direction is ludicrous. Not only that, but who also claimed she could hear the rustling of leaves through those same closed double paned windows and knew about the murder even before the body had been discovered! Yep, her word was taken without question.
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 17th November 2020, 01:01 PM   #211
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
I am shocked Vixen.
Isn't it a judicial fact that OJ is not guilty? Do you dispute that?
I am also shocked! It's amazing how judicial facts were honestly and correctly derived when they favor what Vixen believes but "bent" when she doesn't.
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 17th November 2020, 05:43 PM   #212
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Apparently neither have you. From the Massei Report pg 131:



One meter, sixty centimeters is 5' 3" and 55 kilos is 21 lbs. So I was correct. I'm not the one making up an alternative version.



Why yes...yes, they did.
Typo. Missed the first 1 in 121 lbs.
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 27th November 2020, 04:05 AM   #213
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 330
What's happened to the IA wiki?

What's happened to the IA wiki. The main page is accessible but the link aren't?

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 2nd December 2020, 01:26 PM   #214
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
Argiro, whom Amanda says sexually harassed her in prison, has been acquitted in his sexual assault trial in Italy. This does not surprise me in the least. A prisoner is not going to be believed over a guard and proving rape is very difficult when it's he said/she said without any other evidence.
Quote:
The former deputy commander of the Perugia penitentiary police acquitted of the accusation of sexual violence against an inmate.

Argirò acquitted This concludes, after eight years, the trial of Raffaele Argirò accused for rape after the accusations of a Milan policewoman imprisoned in the Capanne prison between the end of 2006 and 2007. For him, at the end of the indictment, the prosecutor Massimo Casucci had asked for a sentence of three years and eight months, but after two hours in the council chamber the first criminal college of the court of Perugia (president Giangamboni on the side Cavedoni and Sconocchia) pronounced the sentence of acquittal. The defense, represented by the lawyer Paccoi, on the sidelines of the reading of the device spoke "of a crazy story, completely invented, which did not hold up in the courtroom, because it had no response: Argirò is naturally very satisfied with the decision of the judges"
.

https://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/accu...w-3Q71fbU85fr0
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 December 2020, 11:38 PM   #215
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,371
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Argiro, whom Amanda says sexually harassed her in prison, has been acquitted in his sexual assault trial in Italy. This does not surprise me in the least. A prisoner is not going to be believed over a guard and proving rape is very difficult when it's he said/she said without any other evidence.
.

https://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/accu...w-3Q71fbU85fr0
Any information as to whether or not this verdict of acquittal is final? If the case is now at (or near) the time limits of the statute of limitations, an appeal by the prosecutor would not allow for a trial with the legal time limit.

This case against Argiro has been in the Italian judicial system since at least 2013:

Quote:
The Prosecutor: "Try Amanda's Guard"

Perugia, 29 October 2013 - The prosecutor's office went straight. And he believes that all the elements of indictment exist to bring to trial the former inspector of the prison police of the Perugian prison of Capanne, Raffaele Argirò, former deputy commander of the Department (and in this capacity for a long time 'guard' of Amanda Knox) ​​accused of sexual violence with the aggravating circumstance of having acted on a person subject to limitations of personal freedom and extortion against a policewoman in Milan, arrested but then released from prison and acquitted. The prosecutor Massimi Casucci in fact asked for the man to be indicted and the judge for the preliminary hearing, Lidia Brutti, set the hearing for November 19.

The prosecutor also deposited, as supplementary investigations, the financial assessments (current accounts, loans, income) on the account of the security guard, perhaps precisely with a view to verifying her reliability in reference to the heavy accusations against the former inspector and his need for money, as feared by the defense of Argirò during the probative incident. The facts at the center of the investigation, carried out by the police of the judicial police section of Perugia, allegedly took place in the women's section of the prison between December 2006 and January 2007. Argirò was denounced by the same victim of abuse after the «Amanda case ". "When I read the name of Argirò as the perpetrator of Amanda's harassment, I thought it was the right time to report what happened to me ... I wish that a person who takes advantage of situations of psychological awe cannot do it again", said, among other things, the former prisoner but five years after the events.
Source: https://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cron...ocessate.shtml

Translation by Google.
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 4th December 2020, 12:24 AM   #216
DaveBB
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 5
I’d be willing to bet anyone here that Monica Napoleoni will be allowed through protracted and delayed appeals to run out the statutory clock on her criminal conviction same as this guy and Vixen’s hero Mignini in the Monster of Florence case.
DaveBB 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 4th December 2020, 01:11 AM   #217
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 20,743
Originally Posted by DaveBB View Post
I’d be willing to bet anyone here that Monica Napoleoni will be allowed through protracted and delayed appeals to run out the statutory clock on her criminal conviction same as this guy and Vixen’s hero Mignini in the Monster of Florence case.
Mignini is simply a public prosecutor doing his job amongst a powerful freemason and mafia society. (MOF case.)

I always think it rather cute criminals always blame the prosecutor.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
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 4th December 2020, 02:11 AM   #218
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
Originally Posted by DaveBB View Post
I’d be willing to bet anyone here that Monica Napoleoni will be allowed through protracted and delayed appeals to run out the statutory clock on her criminal conviction same as this guy and Vixen’s hero Mignini in the Monster of Florence case.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Mignini is simply a public prosecutor doing his job amongst a powerful freemason and mafia society. (MOF case.)

I always think it rather cute criminals always blame the prosecutor.
1. Mignini is no longer doing any such job as he's retired.

2. Yeah, we know...the Masons and the Mafia got Knox and Sollecito acquitted due to all bent judges Hellman/Zanetti and the five Marasca SC judges. Only the convicting judges were honest and incorruptible.

3. I'm trying to understand what your post has to do with DaveBB's post. In both Napoleoni's and Mignini's cases, they are/were the defendants...you know...the 'criminals'.

4. Pssst....sometimes it really is the prosecutor. Like when Mignini denied both Knox and Sollecito their right to an attorney during their interrogations and Knox the right to an independent interpreter and determined by both the Italian SC and the ECHR.
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 4th December 2020, 03:43 AM   #219
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by DaveBB View Post
I’d be willing to bet anyone here that Monica Napoleoni will be allowed through protracted and delayed appeals to run out the statutory clock on her criminal conviction same as this guy and Vixen’s hero Mignini in the Monster of Florence case.
I don't know if Napoleone and Zugarini are actually serving time at the moment. I thought that their original sentences of 3 years was harsh, so it wouldn't surprise me if they sneaked out after 6 months if they are.

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 4th December 2020, 08:55 AM   #220
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Mignini is simply a public prosecutor doing his job amongst a powerful freemason and mafia society. (MOF case.)

I always think it rather cute criminals always blame the prosecutor.
Speaking of criminals, at the time of the 2009 Sollecito/Knox trial, Mignini himself stood provisionally convicted of criminal abuse of office.

Subsequent to that trial, Mignini was censured by his own professional association for violating Sollecito's rights at interrogation.

He also charged all and sundry with various degrees of defamation, all of which got dropped, except for the acquittal granted Amanda Knox in her allegation that she'd been slapped at interrogation.

Mignini's lawsuits against The West Seattle Herald as well as against Knox's parents lapsed. What is of note about the last one is that Mignini did not include either the publisher or the reporter of the liable. Could that be because the reporter was John Follain, a British tabloid hack who wrote nothing but glowing stuff about him?

Both Mignini's lawsuit and parallel criminal trial brought against Sollecito and Gumbel were laughed out of court.

Mignini also did not get very far in his lawsuit against Maori et al. (This isn't even an exhaustive list!)

Right. This is just a prosecutor "doing his job".
__________________
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 4th December 2020, 09:42 AM   #221
Reformed Offlian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I do.

It's pure propaganda to suggest that some random twenty-something Seattleite could pull the wool over The Rolling Stone.

Jackie Coakley did it. Not saying there's any basis to Vixen's suggestion, just that it's not completely preposterous or unprecendented.
Reformed Offlian 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 4th December 2020, 10:34 AM   #222
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
Jackie Coakley did it. Not saying there's any basis to Vixen's suggestion, just that it's not completely preposterous or unprecendented.
On the face of it you are quite correct.

Yet, what the "Jackie" story had done was attract other investigative periodicals, due to the media high profile generated. It took 4 1/2 months for The Rolling Stone to retract the story in its entirety.

So, yes, it is not completely preposterous that somehow the mythical Knox media Supertanker had pulled the wool over the eyes of The Rolling Stone. However in this case there has been nothing since, not really, that had fundamentally eroded the foundation of what The rolling Stone had printed.

Perhaps a better example might be Jeffrey Archer who made sport out of pulling the wool over the eyes of British nobility.
__________________
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 4th December 2020, 10:56 AM   #223
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,371
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1. Mignini is no longer doing any such job as he's retired.

2. Yeah, we know...the Masons and the Mafia got Knox and Sollecito acquitted due to all bent judges Hellman/Zanetti and the five Marasca SC judges. Only the convicting judges were honest and incorruptible.

3. I'm trying to understand what your post has to do with DaveBB's post. In both Napoleoni's and Mignini's cases, they are/were the defendants...you know...the 'criminals'.

4. Pssst....sometimes it really is the prosecutor. Like when Mignini denied both Knox and Sollecito their right to an attorney during their interrogations and Knox the right to an independent interpreter and determined by both the Italian SC and the ECHR.
A picky correction:

the Italian CSC did not determine that Knox had been denied the right to an independent (fair) interpreter.

While the CSC did determine that Knox's rights were violated under Italian law by denial of a lawyer during interrogation, Italian jurisprudence allowed her interrogation statements into the trial by way of the calunnia charges.

Here are some details.

The ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy found that Italy had violated international law (the Convention) by:1) denying Knox's right to a lawyer during interrogation and consequently denying her a fair trial (violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c) and 2) denying Knox's right to an interpreter (that is, a fair interpreter) during interrogation and consequently denying her a fair trial (violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3e).

While the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (Gemelli CSC panel) did find that the Italian authorities (Prosecutor Mignini and the police, of course) had violated Italian law (CPP Article 63) by denying her a lawyer during interrogation, Gemelli did not criticize the failure to provide a fair interpreter. Italian law does not, apparently, state that an interpreter must perform in a fair or neutral manner. The consequence of the violation of CPP Article 63 was that Knox's interrogation statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape charges; however, it seems that this was only a theoretical prohibition, because under Italian jurisprudence, her interrogation statements could be used against her for the calunnia against Lumumba charge.

The Marasca CSC panel, which finally acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape charges, did not, IIRC, make any material statements criticizing either the violation of CPP Article 63 (denial of lawyer) or the unfair interpreter during interrogation.

However, the Hellmann appeal court's motivation report mentioned the unfairness of the interpretation, but provisionally convicted Knox on the calunnia charge. This conviction for calunnia was finalized by the CSC.

The Boninsegna court's motivation report, finally acquitting Knox of the charges of calunnia against the police and prosecutor Mignini, criticized the irregularities of the interrogation, including the lack of the legally required defense lawyer and the unfairness of the interpretation.

Last edited by Numbers; 4th December 2020 at 10:58 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 4th December 2020, 12:35 PM   #224
Reformed Offlian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
On the face of it you are quite correct.

Yet, what the "Jackie" story had done was attract other investigative periodicals, due to the media high profile generated. It took 4 1/2 months for The Rolling Stone to retract the story in its entirety.

So, yes, it is not completely preposterous that somehow the mythical Knox media Supertanker had pulled the wool over the eyes of The Rolling Stone. However in this case there has been nothing since, not really, that had fundamentally eroded the foundation of what The rolling Stone had printed.

Perhaps a better example might be Jeffrey Archer who made sport out of pulling the wool over the eyes of British nobility.
Doesn't sound like we disagree. It's just that, being a Charlottesville resident to whom the whole "Jackie" story was big local news, I'm especially sensitive to the suggestion that Rolling Stone couldn't be wrong (I don't read it, so I don't have a dog in the fight over whether it's a reliable journalistic source; for the present discussion I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that it usually is, and that the Jackie story was an anomaly).

Last edited by Reformed Offlian; 4th December 2020 at 12:37 PM.
Reformed Offlian 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 4th December 2020, 01:12 PM   #225
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
A picky correction:

the Italian CSC did not determine that Knox had been denied the right to an independent (fair) interpreter.

While the CSC did determine that Knox's rights were violated under Italian law by denial of a lawyer during interrogation, Italian jurisprudence allowed her interrogation statements into the trial by way of the calunnia charges.

Here are some details.

The ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy found that Italy had violated international law (the Convention) by:1) denying Knox's right to a lawyer during interrogation and consequently denying her a fair trial (violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c) and 2) denying Knox's right to an interpreter (that is, a fair interpreter) during interrogation and consequently denying her a fair trial (violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3e).

While the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (Gemelli CSC panel) did find that the Italian authorities (Prosecutor Mignini and the police, of course) had violated Italian law (CPP Article 63) by denying her a lawyer during interrogation, Gemelli did not criticize the failure to provide a fair interpreter. Italian law does not, apparently, state that an interpreter must perform in a fair or neutral manner. The consequence of the violation of CPP Article 63 was that Knox's interrogation statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape charges; however, it seems that this was only a theoretical prohibition, because under Italian jurisprudence, her interrogation statements could be used against her for the calunnia against Lumumba charge.

The Marasca CSC panel, which finally acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape charges, did not, IIRC, make any material statements criticizing either the violation of CPP Article 63 (denial of lawyer) or the unfair interpreter during interrogation.

However, the Hellmann appeal court's motivation report mentioned the unfairness of the interpretation, but provisionally convicted Knox on the calunnia charge. This conviction for calunnia was finalized by the CSC.

The Boninsegna court's motivation report, finally acquitting Knox of the charges of calunnia against the police and prosecutor Mignini, criticized the irregularities of the interrogation, including the lack of the legally required defense lawyer and the unfairness of the interpretation.
After I typed it, I realized I shouldn't have included the "interpreter" with the "determined by both the Italian SC and the ECHR" but I was being lazy and didn't want to bother retyping it. I deserve the correction. Mea culpa.
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 4th December 2020, 03:16 PM   #226
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
Doesn't sound like we disagree. It's just that, being a Charlottesville resident to whom the whole "Jackie" story was big local news, I'm especially sensitive to the suggestion that Rolling Stone couldn't be wrong.
Perhaps we can also agree that any one source, no matter how reputable, cannot be read alone. More than one journalistic source is essential.

I'm just reading about the Pamela Smart debacle in New Hampshire in the 90s. It seemed that every news outlet joined in to slut-her-up, where her only real crime (rather than accessory to murder) was that she'd had an affair with the teenager who'd pulled the trigger. That was a crime, but she was never charged with it.

All four teenage boys are now out of prison. She's due out (sic) 99/99/9999.

But back to our point - each news outlet told essentially the same story, the tarted-up one. That has direct relevance to this thread.

The best thing that happened with the Jackie story was that other outlets covered it too and forced a retraction from The Rolling Stone.
__________________
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 5th December 2020, 08:57 AM   #227
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 330
Rudy out of jail.

Rudy out of jail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55199060

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 5th December 2020, 12:02 PM   #228
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 17,974
I hope his community service isn't to hard on him.

It's interesting to note that the article mentions Guede "was arrested after his DNA was found at the scene" but fails to mention that no evidence at all of Knox and Sollecito* was found in the room where Kercher was killed. Nor does it mention the other evidence found of Guede in the room like his fingerprints on Kercher's clothing, on her purse, his bloody palmprint found under her body, or his shoeprints in her blood. The article mentions the pair were convicted and "a number of appeals and retrials" and the final acquittal but does not actually mention that they were acquitted on appeal of the first conviction. The casual reader might not realize that. The only picture/video of Knox presented is of her crying and unflattering. I found the article not too subtly pro-guilt biased.


*The DNA found on the bra clasp was found unreliable as evidence before someone brings that up.
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 5th December 2020, 01:19 PM   #229
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,359
"In 2009, a jury in Perugia, Italy convicted American student Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito (rah-fy-EHL’-ay soh-LEH’-chee-toh), of murdering Knox’s British roommate, Meredith Kercher, and sentenced them to long prison terms. (After a series of back-and-forth rulings, Knox and Sollecito were definitively acquitted in 2015 by Italy’s highest court.) "

https://roanoke.com/news/archives/to...8a522bc.html#1
Samson 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 5th December 2020, 05:31 PM   #230
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,371
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I hope his community service isn't to hard on him.

It's interesting to note that the article mentions Guede "was arrested after his DNA was found at the scene" but fails to mention that no evidence at all of Knox and Sollecito* was found in the room where Kercher was killed. Nor does it mention the other evidence found of Guede in the room like his fingerprints on Kercher's clothing, on her purse, his bloody palmprint found under her body, or his shoeprints in her blood. The article mentions the pair were convicted and "a number of appeals and retrials" and the final acquittal but does not actually mention that they were acquitted on appeal of the first conviction. The casual reader might not realize that. The only picture/video of Knox presented is of her crying and unflattering. I found the article not too subtly pro-guilt biased.


*The DNA found on the bra clasp was found unreliable as evidence before someone brings that up.
A somewhat more detailed BBC account of the case, from 28 March 2015 reporting the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges by the CSC, is attached to the new BBC article about Guede's remaining sentence to be spent in community service.

However, since that March 2015 article was written prior to the release of the CSC final acquittal motivation report, it also lacks important details.

See: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21937829

All of the BBC articles linked directly or indirectly to the new Guede article are superficial and insufficient in their descriptions of the legal case and the issues of evidence that an objective observer would require to judge the fairness of the trials. Thus, someone relying only those articles would have no concrete detailed understanding of why Knox and Sollecito had been finally acquitted.
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 5th December 2020, 06:35 PM   #231
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
All of the BBC articles linked directly or indirectly to the new Guede article are superficial and insufficient in their descriptions of the legal case and the issues of evidence that an objective observer would require to judge the fairness of the trials. Thus, someone relying only those articles would have no concrete detailed understanding of why Knox and Sollecito had been finally acquitted.
No kidding. The BBC article fails to mention that there really is no suspect-reason why Amanda Knox's DNA should not have been found on the kitchen knife. It blindly assumes that that knife had been the murder weapon... even the convicting courts regarded the murder as non-premeditated, so had to invent ludicrous reasons for Knox to have transported the knife from Raffaele's to the cottage, and then return it.

It makes no mention of Meredith's non-blood-DNA being found in a striation of the knife blade, but no one could replicate the process by which the original Scientific Police person found it - indeed, there is no striation on the blade.

The BBC piece also says that Knox's blood and footprints were found at the murder scene. What it doesn't say is that Knox lived there, that the sole spot of Knox's blood was found on the sink-faucet in the bathroom, and her footprint was found - in her own flat.

That kind of BBC piece is even worse than the guilter campaign, one which repeated "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", regardless of the fact that there was none.

The piece also fails to mention that the finding of "multiple attackers" was ruled at a non-evidentiary, fast-track trial from which Guede was convicted. The BBC piece ignores this, still believing that the judicial facts are fact-facts, that on the acquittal of Sollecito and Knox in 2015, that meant that the wielder of the knife was unknown, since Guede had only been convicted of holding the victim down.

All of that factoid-stuff had been found at a fast-track trial, which in Italy is like a normal trial with the evidence phase missing.
__________________
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 5th December 2020, 07:31 PM   #232
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,371
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
No kidding. The BBC article fails to mention that there really is no suspect-reason why Amanda Knox's DNA should not have been found on the kitchen knife. It blindly assumes that that knife had been the murder weapon... even the convicting courts regarded the murder as non-premeditated, so had to invent ludicrous reasons for Knox to have transported the knife from Raffaele's to the cottage, and then return it.

It makes no mention of Meredith's non-blood-DNA being found in a striation of the knife blade, but no one could replicate the process by which the original Scientific Police person found it - indeed, there is no striation on the blade.

The BBC piece also says that Knox's blood and footprints were found at the murder scene. What it doesn't say is that Knox lived there, that the sole spot of Knox's blood was found on the sink-faucet in the bathroom, and her footprint was found - in her own flat.

That kind of BBC piece is even worse than the guilter campaign, one which repeated "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", "mixed-blood", regardless of the fact that there was none.

The piece also fails to mention that the finding of "multiple attackers" was ruled at a non-evidentiary, fast-track trial from which Guede was convicted. The BBC piece ignores this, still believing that the judicial facts are fact-facts, that on the acquittal of Sollecito and Knox in 2015, that meant that the wielder of the knife was unknown, since Guede had only been convicted of holding the victim down.

All of that factoid-stuff had been found at a fast-track trial, which in Italy is like a normal trial with the evidence phase missing.
There could be confusion in describing Italy's fast-track trial as "like a normal trial with the evidence phase missing", because in the fast-track trial, evidence is indeed introduced. However, that evidence is only the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, with the exception that the fast-track trial judge is not allowed to request any gathering of additional evidence.

The evidence against the accused in the fast-track trial is thus the evidence gathered and documented in the preliminary investigations, and the evidence in favor of the accused consists of whatever spontaneous statements or testimony in response to questioning that the accused may choose to provide during the fast-track trial or preliminary hearing. However, as in the preliminary hearing, witnesses may be heard if requested by a party and ordered by the judge.

The procedures for the fast-track trial (also called a "summary trial" or "abbreviated trial", in Italian giudizio abbreviato) are detailed in CPP Articles 438 - 443 and for the preliminary hearing in CPP Articles 416 - 433.
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 5th December 2020, 10:33 PM   #233
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There could be confusion in describing Italy's fast-track trial as "like a normal trial with the evidence phase missing", because in the fast-track trial, evidence is indeed introduced. However, that evidence is only the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, with the exception that the fast-track trial judge is not allowed to request any gathering of additional evidence.
It's hard to imagine any trial, fast-track or otherwise, which makes no mention of evidence. I wish I could remember the citation for it, but a long time ago I read a piece about what was meant by an "evidence phase" being missing.

Even though it was talking about Italy, this was written from a North American perspective (under an adversarial system) where the defence had a right of disclosure, disclosure by the prosecution as to the evidence as well as the expert analysis that had backed up the prosecution's case. The evidence phase, so the rationale went, was the main way that an accused has a right to face their accusers, even if it be only a lab technician at a DNA lab somewhere.

If I remember correctly - which I'm probably not - it was written by a woman who'd been otherwise commenting on Italy beginning a reform from an Inquisatorial legal system to an adversarial one - and that that reform had stalled halfway.

In any event, it remains useful shorthand - although probably not whole accurate - to describe the process of what Ruedy went through as one where there had been no **full** evidence phase, not in the sense that even happened at both the Massei as well as Hellmann trials.

The first time I'd argued this, I made the mistake of confusing a fast-track trial with a plea of "no contest" as it exists in the States. I wish I could remember who it had been and what points they had made, but I accepted that my analogy had been wrong.

But back to the fast-track - the issue is not that there had been no evidence, it is that a fast-track trial does not have the same (theoretically rigourous) evidence phase like in the 1st grade or 2nd grade trials in Italy.

As an aside, the final Cassazione appeals trial is also one where there's an evidence phase missing. This does not mean that there is no evidence. Guilter-nutters to the Sollecito/Knox trials keep trying to say that Cassazione in 2015 had acquitted them by ruling on the veracity of the evidence, basically highlighting some bits and ruling out other bits. All that Cassazione had done in 2015 was to rule that based on the evidence that the lower courts had before them, the only rational verdict had to have been an acquittal.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 5th December 2020 at 10:34 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 6th December 2020, 08:33 AM   #234
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,371
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's hard to imagine any trial, fast-track or otherwise, which makes no mention of evidence. I wish I could remember the citation for it, but a long time ago I read a piece about what was meant by an "evidence phase" being missing.

Even though it was talking about Italy, this was written from a North American perspective (under an adversarial system) where the defence had a right of disclosure, disclosure by the prosecution as to the evidence as well as the expert analysis that had backed up the prosecution's case. The evidence phase, so the rationale went, was the main way that an accused has a right to face their accusers, even if it be only a lab technician at a DNA lab somewhere.

If I remember correctly - which I'm probably not - it was written by a woman who'd been otherwise commenting on Italy beginning a reform from an Inquisatorial legal system to an adversarial one - and that that reform had stalled halfway.

In any event, it remains useful shorthand
- although probably not whole accurate - to describe the process of what Ruedy went through as one where there had been no **full** evidence phase, not in the sense that even happened at both the Massei as well as Hellmann trials.

The first time I'd argued this, I made the mistake of confusing a fast-track trial with a plea of "no contest" as it exists in the States. I wish I could remember who it had been and what points they had made, but I accepted that my analogy had been wrong.

But back to the fast-track - the issue is not that there had been no evidence, it is that a fast-track trial does not have the same (theoretically rigourous) evidence phase like in the 1st grade or 2nd grade trials in Italy.

As an aside, the final Cassazione appeals trial is also one where there's an evidence phase missing. This does not mean that there is no evidence. Guilter-nutters to the Sollecito/Knox trials keep trying to say that Cassazione in 2015 had acquitted them by ruling on the veracity of the evidence, basically highlighting some bits and ruling out other bits. All that Cassazione had done in 2015 was to rule that based on the evidence that the lower courts had before them, the only rational verdict had to have been an acquittal.
Why not use the shorthand that the fast-track trial has a "limited" evidence phase, rather than "no" evidence phase? That's a more accurate description and doesn't require a long explanation.

For the appellate review by the CSC, again, there is confusion when one states that the CSC only reviews the application of the law and does not review the evidence or the merits. Based on Italian law, as written down in CPP Article 606, that's not a true statement, in the sense of true as "the whole truth". The CSC is fully allowed under law to consider whether evidence admitted in a lower court was valid or admissible and also whether decisive evidence not admitted was was improperly not admitted (CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, subparagraphs c) and d)), and whether the evidence and the deductions derived from the evidence are in fact missing, contradictory, or illogical (CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, subparagraph e)).

Some posters (PGP) use the shorthand "the CSC only reviews the application of law, not the merits" to claim that the Marasca CSC panel judgment was illegal. This claim, of course, is a total misrepresentation based upon a misreading of or failure to read the actual Italian law.
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 6th December 2020, 08:39 AM   #235
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,371
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's hard to imagine any trial, fast-track or otherwise, which makes no mention of evidence. I wish I could remember the citation for it, but a long time ago I read a piece about what was meant by an "evidence phase" being missing.

Even though it was talking about Italy, this was written from a North American perspective (under an adversarial system) where the defence had a right of disclosure, disclosure by the prosecution as to the evidence as well as the expert analysis that had backed up the prosecution's case. The evidence phase, so the rationale went, was the main way that an accused has a right to face their accusers, even if it be only a lab technician at a DNA lab somewhere.

If I remember correctly - which I'm probably not - it was written by a woman who'd been otherwise commenting on Italy beginning a reform from an Inquisatorial legal system to an adversarial one - and that that reform had stalled halfway.

In any event, it remains useful shorthand
- although probably not whole accurate - to describe the process of what Ruedy went through as one where there had been no **full** evidence phase, not in the sense that even happened at both the Massei as well as Hellmann trials.

The first time I'd argued this, I made the mistake of confusing a fast-track trial with a plea of "no contest" as it exists in the States. I wish I could remember who it had been and what points they had made, but I accepted that my analogy had been wrong.

But back to the fast-track - the issue is not that there had been no evidence, it is that a fast-track trial does not have the same (theoretically rigourous) evidence phase like in the 1st grade or 2nd grade trials in Italy.

As an aside, the final Cassazione appeals trial is also one where there's an evidence phase missing. This does not mean that there is no evidence. Guilter-nutters to the Sollecito/Knox trials keep trying to say that Cassazione in 2015 had acquitted them by ruling on the veracity of the evidence, basically highlighting some bits and ruling out other bits. All that Cassazione had done in 2015 was to rule that based on the evidence that the lower courts had before them, the only rational verdict had to have been an acquittal.
Why not use the shorthand that the fast-track trial has a "limited" evidence phase, rather than "no" evidence phase? That's a more accurate description and doesn't require a long explanation.

For the appellate review by the CSC, again, there is confusion when one states that the CSC only reviews the application of the law and does not review the evidence or the merits. Based on Italian law, as written down in CPP Article 606, that's not a true statement, in the sense of true as "the whole truth". The CSC is fully allowed under law to consider whether evidence admitted in a lower court was valid or admissible and also whether decisive evidence not admitted was was improperly not admitted (CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, subparagraphs c) and d)), and whether the evidence and the deductions derived from the evidence are in fact missing, contradictory, or illogical (CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, subparagraph e)).

Some posts (PGP) use the shorthand "the CSC only reviews the application of law, not the merits" to claim that the Marasca CSC panel judgment was illegal. This claim, of course, is a total misrepresentation based upon a misreading of or failure to read the actual Italian law. In fact, the CSC panel which annulled the Hellmann court acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges used the very same provisions of CPP Article 606 as the Marasca CSC panel used to annul the Nencini court conviction of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges.
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 6th December 2020, 08:57 AM   #236
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Why not use the shorthand that the fast-track trial has a "limited" evidence phase, rather than "no" evidence phase? That's a more accurate description and doesn't require a long explanation.
Why not do that? When it comes down to it, I have no idea. Please remember that my present understanding comes from trying to argue that "fast track" was the Italian version of a defendant pleading "no contest". I was decidedly wrong about that then, and it won't be devastating to me to find out I am wrong now! So take your best shot, dude!

With that said, the explanation I got was heavy on the word "phase", when it was explained as "the evidence phase is missing". After that I can only repeat stuff I'd already said.

Be that as it may (I'm running out of expressions of caveat!) in Italy a fast-track trial does not ignore evidence, especially the stuff presented at a preliminary hearing. A fast-track trial has no evidence phase in it, to test that evidence. It generates the dreaded "judicial fact" about the evidence, rather than the assumed fact-fact of the evidence in a full trial.

That's not even a long explanation!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 6th December 2020 at 08:58 AM.
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 6th December 2020, 09:16 AM   #237
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 330
Can I ask again if anyone else is having links issues with the IA wiki? I still use it as a resource.

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 6th December 2020, 09:46 AM   #238
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,915
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Can I ask again if anyone else is having links issues with the IA wiki? I still use it as a resource.

Hoots
It's been months since I've clicked on anywhere else other than here. Last I checked IA was down, but individual topic threads could be accessed indirectly through Google.
__________________
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 6th December 2020, 10:13 AM   #239
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,371
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Why not do that? When it comes down to it, I have no idea. Please remember that my present understanding comes from trying to argue that "fast track" was the Italian version of a defendant pleading "no contest". I was decidedly wrong about that then, and it won't be devastating to me to find out I am wrong now! So take your best shot, dude!

With that said, the explanation I got was heavy on the word "phase", when it was explained as "the evidence phase is missing". After that I can only repeat stuff I'd already said.

Be that as it may (I'm running out of expressions of caveat!) in Italy a fast-track trial does not ignore evidence, especially the stuff presented at a preliminary hearing. A fast-track trial has no evidence phase in it, to test that evidence. It generates the dreaded "judicial fact" about the evidence, rather than the assumed fact-fact of the evidence in a full trial.

That's not even a long explanation!
Bill, it's not your mistake, but rather the simplifications made by intermediate sources.

For example, here's the first paragraphs of the Italian Wikipedia article on the fast-track trial:

Quote:
Il giudizio abbreviato è un procedimento penale speciale del sistema giudiziario italiano, previsto dagli articoli 438 e seguenti del codice di procedura penale, che si caratterizza per l'omissione del dibattimento: il giudice decide esclusivamente sulla base degli atti contenuti nel fascicolo del pubblico ministero, eventualmente contenente anche gli atti compiuti dal difensore nell'esercizio di investigazioni difensive, e salva, in ogni caso, la possibilità per l'imputato di chiedere e ottenere un'integrazione probatoria (giudizio abbreviato condizionato). Si instaura solo su espressa richiesta dell'imputato, personalmente o per mezzo del difensore munito di procura speciale.

In caso di condanna, la pena è ridotta di un terzo (per i delitti) e della metà per le contravvenzioni; in caso di ergastolo senza isolamento diurno, si applica la riduzione ad anni trenta di reclusione.

Il legislatore con legge n. 33 del 12/04/2019[1] ha attuato una riforma del rito abbreviato, escludendo il giudizio abbreviato per i delitti puniti con la pena dell'ergastolo; ratio della novella è quella di eliminare la possibilità per tali casi di beneficiare della funzione premiale del giudizio abbreviato e assicurare una risposta sanzionatoria particolarmente severa per i delitti di particolare pericolosità sociale.
Google translation:

Quote:
The abbreviated trial is a special criminal procedure of the Italian judicial system, provided for by articles 438 and following of the code of criminal procedure, which is characterized by the omission of the hearing: the judge decides exclusively on the basis of the documents contained in the file of the public prosecutor, possibly also containing the deeds carried out by the defender in the exercise of defensive investigations, and in any case, without prejudice to the possibility for the accused to request and obtain probative integration (conditional abbreviated judgment). It is established only at the express request of the accused, personally or through the defender with special power of attorney.

In case of conviction, the penalty is reduced by one third (for crimes) and by half for fines; in the case of life imprisonment without daytime isolation, the reduction to thirty years of imprisonment applies.

The legislator with law n. 33 of 12/04/2019 [1] implemented a reform of the abbreviated procedure, excluding the abbreviated judgment for crimes punishable by life imprisonment; rationale of the novel is to eliminate the possibility for such cases to benefit from the reward function of the abbreviated judgment and to ensure a particularly severe sanctioning response for crimes of particular social danger.
The Italian word "dibattimento" means trial, debate, or hearing. What is apparently omitted in the fast-track trial is what can be considered the debate - the detailed examination of witness testimony.

While the "debate" is omitted, witnesses can be heard; these are the witnesses that are (or have been) heard in the preliminary hearing.

Essentially, in the fast-track trial, the judge of the preliminary hearing (or a new judge) uses the information from the preliminary hearing to deliver a verdict. There is evidence and it consists of the documents of the preliminary investigation file and any spontaneous statement or testimony the accused wishes to contribute, and potentially expert witness (for example, pathologist or forensic expert) testimony if required.

Note that as of a 2019 Italian law, a person accused of murder - with a potential life sentence - would not be eligible for a fast-track trial. Had this been the law at the relevant time (2007- 2008), Guede would not have been eligible for a fast-track trial.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th December 2020 at 11:08 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 6th December 2020, 11:52 AM   #240
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's been months since I've clicked on anywhere else other than here. Last I checked IA was down, but individual topic threads could be accessed indirectly through Google.
Hmmm! I can't get anything but the home page. It's been like that for a couple of weeks. I'm reduced to going to TMofMK for resources. It would be a pity to see the wiki be abandoned since it represents a lot of hard work to put it together.

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
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 03:51 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.