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

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


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

Reply
Old Yesterday, 12:07 PM   #2281
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,407
I do find it revealing that the lie that Knox or her lawyers claimed she was 'tortured' is still being repeated. Not surprising, just revealing. This need to resort to a clear lie indicates so much more about those repeating and spreading this lie than anyone else.

As for the remaining hate site, it's interesting to note that they have resorted to recycling past articles. It's all they've got. Practically no one posts there anymore except for a very small handful of die hard whack jobs. They're not convincing anyone now but themselves.

Last edited by Stacyhs; Yesterday at 12:17 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 Yesterday, 01:22 PM   #2282
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,532
The Structure of the Text of a Published ECHR Judgment

The format of the text of a published ECHR follows a highly consistent structure. This consistent format structure contrasts to the less consistent format structure of the text of published Italian court judgments. For example, in an ECHR judgment, every paragraph is sequentially numbered, making citations very convenient. Based on the published judgments in the Knox – Sollecito case, Italian courts do not number each paragraph of a judgment, which results in less convenience in finding particular sections of text.

In the ECHR's current practice, it seems that essentially all judgments are issued as joint examinations of the admissibility and the merits. However, the Convention and the Rules allow for a decision on admissibility to be published prior to a judgment on the merits. My brief surveys of the recent decisions listed in HUDOC (the ECHR case database) found only inadmissible and friendly settlement cases.

In the following outline, the ECHR's treatment of only the first of possibly several complaints is shown. If there were additional complaints, the same treatment would be applied to each.

I apologize for the complexity of the outline format.

The ECHR published judgment is typically organized into six sections. These are, in sequence:

1. Identification of the Court, Case, Publication Date, Judges of the Court, and Date of Deliberation and Adoption of the Judgment

2. PROCEDURE
2.1. Identification of the Case, Applicant, Respondent State, and Date the Application was Lodged with the ECHR
2.2. Identification of the legal representatives of the Applicant and Respondent State.
2.3. The main Complaint(s), very briefly summarized
2.4. Date of Communication of the Application to the Respondent State Government, with, if applicable, an acknowledgment that the remainder of the Application was declared inadmissible

3. THE FACTS
3.1. Circumstances of the Case: a description in chronological order of the relevant events, with any events that are disputed by the parties acknowledged, and the version of each presented.
3.2. Relevant Domestic Law:
3.2.1. Relevant statutes or regulations (quotations of relevant parts)
3.2.2. Relevant practices
3.3. Relevant International Law, including ObservationsThe and Documents (if applicable)
3.4. Relevant Observations of Third Party Intervenors (if applicable)

4. THE LAW
4.1. First alleged Violation of the Convention:
4.1.1. Description of Applicant's Complaint in a brief summary
4.1.2. Quotation of the relevant part of the applicable Article of the Convention

4.2. Examination of Admissibility:
4.2.1. Submissions of the Parties:
4.2.1.1. Government
4.2.1.2. Applicant
4.2.2 The ECHR's assessment, analyzing the submissions of the parties and the Facts
4.2.3. The ECHR's conclusion: Either Inadmissible, or, If Not Inadmissible, then Admissible

4.3. Examination of Merits
4.3.1. Submissions of the Parties:
4.3.1.1. Applicant
4.3.1.2. Government
4.3.2. The ECHR's assessment, analyzing the submissions of the parties and the facts
4.3.2.1. General Principles, including the Convention, ECHR case-law, International Law (if applicable), Observations of Third Parties (if applicable)
4.3.2.2. Application of the General Principles to the Case
4.3.2.2.1. Analysis of the Facts in light of the General Principles
4.3.2.2.2. The analysis includes reasonable inferences as appropriate
4.3.2.3. ECHR's conclusion: Violation or No Violation of the relevant Article of the Convention

5. Application of Article 41 of the Convention (Just Satisfaction)
5.1. Damage
5.2. Costs and Expenses
5.3. Default Interest
5.4. Suggested Individual or General Redress (if applicable)
5.4.1. For example: a reminder that a violation of Article 6.1 entitles the Applicant to request a new trial with all Convention rights upheld
5.4.2. For example: a reminder that a Respondent State should ensure that its law and practices on criminal defamation must conform to the principles of ECHR case-law

6. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT (summary of the judgment)
6.1. Decides and/or Declares (typically on Admissibility and Inadmissibility, or joining of applications)
6.2. Holds (summaries of the judgments: Violation or No Violation of each Article related to each Complaint)
6.3. Dismisses (the remaining parts of claims for Just Satisfaction)

Last edited by Numbers; Yesterday at 01:32 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 Yesterday, 02:35 PM   #2283
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Please cite evidence that calunnia is the "US equivalent of 'obsruction (sic) of justice' (broadly speaking, interfering with the investigation of a case [cf Trump allegations])."

I doubt this is accurate due to the fact that Knox has no criminal record in the US. Criminal convictions in another country are recognized by the US as long as they meet the criteria (i.e. the conviction is for something recognized as an equivalent crime in both countries.) As no one, including you, TJMK, or either PMF ever provided said public US criminal record, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that it doesn't exist.


ETA: Did you get the "obstruction of justice" idea from TJMK? If so, did they cite evidence from any legal source or was it just another one of their uncited declarations?

Let's take baby steps. Someone is convicted of a criminal offence in Italy and jailed for a substantial amount of time, say, >two years (=serious offence). Let's say this person is an Italian national.

Are you trying to fool us into believing this person would not be considered a felon by the USA when he tries to enter the country. According to you, he'd get a green card, no questions asked.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:39 PM   #2284
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I see Vixen has still failed to provide any evidence that calunnia is the equivalent to Obstruction of Justice...even broadly.
It is broadly equivalent. Similar ambit, similar prison sentence.

Roughly equivalent to the UK's 'attempting to pervert the course of justice'. Similar criteria as above.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:46 PM   #2285
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,671
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I do find it revealing that the lie that Knox or her lawyers claimed she was 'tortured' is still being repeated. Not surprising, just revealing. This need to resort to a clear lie indicates so much more about those repeating and spreading this lie than anyone else.

As for the remaining hate site, it's interesting to note that they have resorted to recycling past articles. It's all they've got. Practically no one posts there anymore except for a very small handful of die hard whack jobs. They're not convincing anyone now but themselves.
Article 3 is the article which deals with torture which is defined as degrading and inhuman treatment.

No, the cop should not have hugged Knox in sympathy with the plight she found herself in. However, by no stretch of imagination does it qualify as 'degrading and inhuman treatment'.

Knox is taking the p!ss.

Especially when you bear in mind she shamelessly insisted to the police that her kind gentle boss, Patrick Lumumba, was the rapist and killer of Meredith Kercher.

For sheer cheek, Knox takes the biscuit.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:46 PM   #2286
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,663
Dup
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; Yesterday at 03:50 PM.
Bill Williams 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 Yesterday, 05:42 PM   #2287
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,532
It's amazingly hilarious - this statement in a guilter post:

"Article 3 is the article which deals with torture which is defined as degrading and inhuman treatment."

Are the guilters trying to convince the readers of their posts that guilters don't bother to read, or don't bother to try to comprehend, even the simplest concepts?

Here is the real text of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights:

"ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Does that sentence give the appearance that "torture ... is defined as degrading and inhuman treatment"?

Here's the ECHR definition of these terms, from its case-law in LYAPIN v. RUSSIA 46956/09 24/07/2014:

"114. The Court has considered treatment to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering. Treatment has been held to be “degrading” when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or psychological resistance, or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 89).

115. In determining whether a particular form of ill-treatment should be classified as torture, consideration must be given to the distinction, embodied in Article 3, between this notion and that of inhuman or degrading treatment. As noted in previous cases, it appears that it was the intention that the Convention should, by means of such a distinction, attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering."

Looking at the above ECHR case-law, the definitions can be isolated as:

Torture is defined as deliberate (intentional) inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering.

Inhuman treatment is defined as treatment that because, among other things, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering.

Degrading treatment is defined as treatment such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and breaking their physical or psychological resistance, or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience.

In the 29 April 2016 Communication to Italy for Knox v. Italy, the complaint is given as:

"2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the slaps on the head that she suffered (scappellotti) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment."

Thus, Knox does not complain of torture.

My opinion - which is only a speculation - is that the ECHR will most likely judge the course of events during the interrogation, including the slaps coupled with the threats and shouting by the police and the inappropriate suggestions of amnesia by the interpreter as constituting degrading treatment and thus a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Last edited by Numbers; Yesterday at 05:46 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 Yesterday, 06:25 PM   #2288
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,407
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Please cite evidence that calunnia is the "US equivalent of 'obsruction (sic) of justice' (broadly speaking, interfering with the investigation of a case [cf Trump allegations])."

I doubt this is accurate due to the fact that Knox has no criminal record in the US. Criminal convictions in another country are recognized by the US as long as they meet the criteria (i.e. the conviction is for something recognized as an equivalent crime in both countries.) As no one, including you, TJMK, or either PMF ever provided said public US criminal record, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that it doesn't exist.


ETA: Did you get the "obstruction of justice" idea from TJMK? If so, did they cite evidence from any legal source or was it just another one of their uncited declarations?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let's take baby steps. Someone is convicted of a criminal offence in Italy and jailed for a substantial amount of time, say, >two years (=serious offence). Let's say this person is an Italian national.

Are you trying to fool us into believing this person would not be considered a felon by the USA when he tries to enter the country. According to you, he'd get a green card, no questions asked.
I agree. Let's take baby steps. I asked you to provide evidence of the highlighted above. You've been making this claim for years yet have never once provided a single source to support it. Instead, you dance around the fact that you have not/ cannot provide a single supporting cite. A classic example is your response above.

Knox's (alleged) US criminal record is available to the public upon request. Remember her noise violation ticket for the 2007 party? Available. Are you trying to fool us into believing that no one on TJMK, PMF or anyone else has ever requested this (alleged) record? If there were one, it would have been plastered all over the aforementioned sites and the internet with much glee.

Sorry, Charlie. Your claiming it is broadly equivalent to "obstruction of justice" remains simply that: your claim. And an unsupported one at that.
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 Yesterday, 06:35 PM   #2289
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,407
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Article 3 is the article which deals with torture which is defined as degrading and inhuman treatment.
Yes. And Numbers has quoted the exact definitions of what constitutes torture and degrading and inhuman treatment. Try reading it slowly.

Quote:
No, the cop should not have hugged Knox in sympathy with the plight she found herself in. However, by no stretch of imagination does it qualify as 'degrading and inhuman treatment'.

Nor should Ficarra have slapped her on the back of the head.
Quote:
Knox is taking the p!ss.
The police and interpreter admitted to the actions that the court found unacceptable behavior by them.

Quote:
Especially when you bear in mind she the police shamelessly insisted to the police Knox that her she had met kind gentle boss, Patrick Lumumba (and told her that) he was the rapist and killer of Meredith Kercher.
There, fixed that for you.
Quote:
For sheer cheek, Knox takes the biscuit.
Nah, she doesn't even come close to others I can name.
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 Yesterday, 08:01 PM   #2290
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,532
Here's a case that is an example of the ECHR exercising the principle of "jura novit curia" - that is, the ECHR is the master of the characterization to be given in law to the facts of a case. In other words, if an applicant has, from the ECHR's viewpoint, mis-categorized the violation of the Convention in his or her complaint, the ECHR will supply the proper legal category.

The case is PULFER v. ALBANIA 31959/13 20/11/2018. Here's an excerpt illustrating the use of the principle, which is ECHR case-law.

"THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

63. The applicant complained that the authorities’ failure to protect her life, which had been put at serious risk by the violent acts of a private individual, as well as the authorities’ failure to continue the criminal investigations and proceedings against S.N., had violated Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention.

64. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that, in the absence of a serious threat to the applicant’s life, the above complaints related to her physical integrity fall to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention (see Valiulienė v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 42, 26 March 2013 and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 126-127, 20 March 2018), which reads as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”"

This example is informative as to how the ECHR functions.

Considering the false statements in posts from a guilter denying that the ECHR followed this principle of supplying the law when it was given the facts, this example also provides a sterling example of why readers should be highly skeptical of any guilter statement.

Last edited by Numbers; Yesterday at 08:49 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 Today, 09:57 AM   #2291
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,103
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Article 3 is the article which deals with torture which is defined as degrading and inhuman treatment.

No, the cop should not have hugged Knox in sympathy with the plight she found herself in. However, by no stretch of imagination does it qualify as 'degrading and inhuman treatment'.

Knox is taking the p!ss.

Especially when you bear in mind she shamelessly insisted to the police that her kind gentle boss, Patrick Lumumba, was the rapist and killer of Meredith Kercher.

For sheer cheek, Knox takes the biscuit.
No, Article 3 states;

"No one shall be subjected to torture OR to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Torture is NOT "defined as degrading and inhuman treatment" as you claim above. It is two separate things.

Amanda's appeal to the ECHR contains numerous complaints, inhuman or degrading treatment being just one. And IIRC, the inappropriate contact (aka; "hugging") was not part of it. It was mentioned in the Boninsegna ruling, and that is what the ECHR refers to in it's communication. I don't have the text of Amanda's appeal so I can't confirm this, but it doesn't matter. The point is, Amanda's appeal is based on numerous, serious violations of the Convention and you disingenuously cherry pick one thing, whether cited by Amanda or not, as the basis of the appeal. Your intent is obvious, but I have to wonder exactly why you think making such an ignorant comment makes sense on a board where everyone already understands the nature of the ECHR appeal. Do you have some sort of underlying desire to continuously prove your dishonest and disingenuous approach to the case? If so, don't bother, we are all very much aware of this already.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:20 AM   #2292
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,663
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Do you have some sort of underlying desire to continuously prove your dishonest and disingenuous approach to the case? If so, don't bother, we are all very much aware of this already.
Apparently Vixen has some sort of underlying desire. It's a desire which causes her to post a pic to this thread which she claimed showed no bars on the ground floor window below Filomena's window....

.... except that's what it showed. Bars on the window.

Thousands of lies later Vixen is still at it.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams 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
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 10:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.