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 Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 8th November 2019, 08:06 AM   #161
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,773
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What? Cantwell was a congressman and would almost certainly have crossed paths with Hillary some time or other.

First, Maria Cantwell was, and still is, a US Senator from Washington State. She was briefly a US Representative ("congressman") when Amanda Knox was in primary school. That aside, your speculation that Cantwell and Clinton "almost certainly . . . crossed paths" does not prove that a) Cantwell asked Clinton to pressure the Italian government on Knox's behalf, or b) Clinton agreed to do so, or c) Clinton actually did so. Fail.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We do know the US State Department tried to stick their oar into another country's justice system.

No, "we" don't know that. Why don't you provide some real evidence? We'll wait.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 8th November 2019, 08:35 AM   #162
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,773
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Did it not declare it would not extradite Knox?

That is not "interference." There are a number of democracies, including France and Germany, that will not extradite their citizens under any circumstances. Many other countries will not extradite unless certain conditions are met, including, but not limited to:
  • Possibility of capital punishment or torture if extradited
  • Failure to fulfill dual criminality
  • Political crimes
  • Fair trial standards
(Source; emphasis added)

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Italy most likely decided, you have her, then.

No, that's simply your latest attempt to explain away the acquittal. Had the Italian Supreme Court believed K&S guilty, they would certainly have so ruled, even though they knew the US would not extradite her. This would at least have prevented her from ever setting foot in Italy again, and there would have been an outside chance of her being extradited had she made the mistake of traveling to a country that has a treaty with Italy (as nearly happened to Roman Polanski). Further, it doesn't explain why Sollecito was acquitted. Fail.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 8th November 2019, 09:29 AM   #163
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
Annie Le murder at Yale

"At the New Republic, law professor Erin Murphy describes how DNA transfer initially led police to an impossible suspect in the 2009 murder of Yale student Annie Le. After her body was found in her lab's crawl space, DNA found on her skin and underwear matched that of a convicted offender in the area. He had left DNA behind when he carried out construction work in the lab, Murphy writes, but he might still have gone to prison for the crime—if he hadn't died two years earlier." link

DNA transfer happens. The actual murderer was Raymond Clark.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 8th November 2019 at 09:37 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 8th November 2019, 09:36 AM   #164
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,365
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Instead of you asking me incessant questions, what about if you attempt to answer some of mine?

Will you be questioning the integrity of the forensic scientists in the Grace Spillane case? If not, why not?




You constantly claim anyone associated with the prosecution in the Kercher case is unqualified, unprofessional, corrupt and their results 'all wrong'. Does this only apply to Amanda Knox but not to Myra Hindley, Jodie Arias, Rose West? Was Knox spectacularly unlucky to draw such a short straw?


Conversely, perhaps it's the case everybody is marching in step except you and your cohorts.
I strongly suggest you go do a little research into the case of Riley Fox, and specifically, how the police, as a result of tunnel vision, decided her father, Kevin, was guilty and how that led to them 'fabricating' a case against him. This included a coercive interrogation that got him to confess to the murder as well as the police completely ignoring overwhelming evidence pointing to the real killer.

So no, Amanda AND Raffaele (remember him?) were not "spectacularly unlucky", just unlucky. Unlucky to get caught up in a case where the prosecutor and members of the investigation team got tunnel vision.

Was Stefanoni professional and honest when she...
  • failed to testify to the TMB testing
  • testified to using Real Time PCR to quantify the knife samples when in truth she had used the Qubit Fluorometer
  • testified Luminol samples were Meredith's blood despite the negative TMB and DNA results.

Were the police professional and honest when they...
  • didn't record the interrogations.
  • arrested Lumumba without even doing a basic background check.
  • removed the knife from the collection envelope in the police station.

Was Donnino professional and honest when she conveyed to Amanda a time when she suffered traumatic amnesia and suggested to Amanda she was having the same problem and for her to try to imagine what might have happened?

And on and on. But here's the thing - no one is saying these people are, by their very nature, unprofessional and corrupt. Tunnel vision and confirmation bias are inherent human behaviors and no one is immune. So what I'd say is, specific to THIS CASE, the police early on decided Amanda and Raffaele were guilty and from that point forward, as a result of tunnel vision and confirmation bias, saw everything as incriminating to them.
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 8th November 2019, 10:38 AM   #165
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,371
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Did it not declare it would not extradite Knox?

Italy most likely decided, you have her, then.
So you're guessing. Rather than investigate why the U.S. did or did not do something, you decide, randomly, that Italy "more than likely" decided to do something.

Great post for a skeptics' site. I now have all the evidence I need from you to make an informed decision.
__________________
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 8th November 2019, 11:05 AM   #166
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
Grace Millane and luminol

From the Daily Mail link to the Millane case given above in comment #159, "Ms Crenfeldt told defence barrister Ian Brookie under cross examination that luminol testing showed that someone with blood on their feet had walked around the apartment, she said."

I noticed that Ms. Crenfeldt referred to probable blood (emphasis added), but the jury might not understand the distinction between a presumptive test (which indicates the possibility of blood) and a confirmatory test (which demonstrates the presence of blood). This distinction is important in the Knox/Sollecito case. If the prosecution failed to perform a confirmatory test, then it is possible that they detected blood, but in my opinion it should not have been presented to the jury.

The article also stated that "The smaller of the stains was more circular and 'could have come from a bucket', Ms Crenfeldt said." This is speculation.

Disclaimer: Nothing in my comments above should be taken to mean that the defendant is not culpable. There are in general two separate issues: one concerns the innocence or guilt of an accused person and the other concerns how carefully the forensics were performed and explained to the jury.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 8th November 2019 at 11:15 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 8th November 2019, 11:25 AM   #167
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What? Cantwell was a congressman woman/person and would almost certainly have crossed paths with Hillary some time or other.

Oh, good lord, Vixen. Stop trying to move the goalpost so blatantly. My question is whether MARIA Cantwell ever actually met with Hillary Clinton to discuss Amanda Knox. I can find no evidence of it. And you still have failed to produce any evidence that Wikileaks released an email from Clinton to Cantwell re Amanda Knox, much less the actual email.
[quote]
Quote:
We do know the US State Department tried to stick their oar into another country's justice system.
No, 'we' do not. That is YOUR allegation for which you or any of your fellow PGP have failed to ever provide a shred evidence. It's just another lie along with the "acquittal judges and defense experts are all "bent'" nonsense.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 8th November 2019 at 12:53 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 8th November 2019, 11:45 AM   #168
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Did it not declare it would not extradite Knox?

Italy most likely decided, you have her, then.
Ummmm....no, it did not. I suggest you stop using tabloids like the Express for your source. It was the origin for that rumor and only reported that an unidentified "US State Dept. source" said Knox would never be extradited. There was never a verifiable comment from the State Dept. regarding Knox's extradition.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...Kercher-murder


Media Bias/Fact Check:

Quote:
Overall, we rate the Daily Express Right Biased based on editorial content and Mixed for factual reporting due to publishing conspiracies & pseudoscience as well as a few failed fact checks. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 7/16/2018)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-express/

For someone who claims she is "rarely wrong" because her "assertions are based on well-founded facts and sources", I suggest you reconsider what a credible source is.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 8th November 2019 at 11:53 AM.
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 8th November 2019, 11:49 AM   #169
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,365
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"At the New Republic, law professor Erin Murphy describes how DNA transfer initially led police to an impossible suspect in the 2009 murder of Yale student Annie Le. After her body was found in her lab's crawl space, DNA found on her skin and underwear matched that of a convicted offender in the area. He had left DNA behind when he carried out construction work in the lab, Murphy writes, but he might still have gone to prison for the crime—if he hadn't died two years earlier." link

DNA transfer happens. The actual murderer was Raymond Clark.
Thanks Chris, I remember this case. Certainly a wonderful reference case for DNA transfer.

Are you aware of any additional information on this? Specifically, I'd be curious to know where the construction worker's DNA was (if known) and how it got onto Annie's clothes. I would assume it occurred when her clothes were hidden in the ceiling (secondary transfer) but if Clark touched something that contained the construction worker's DNA and then transferred it onto Annie's underwear, then this would be a proven case of tertiary transfer.

Regardless, I guess this destroys Vixen's belief that DNA transfer can't happen after 24 hours, although I'm sure she'll find a way to dismiss this case as not relevant.
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 8th November 2019, 11:56 AM   #170
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I doubt it. Trump is more her thing.
That's probably the ugliest thing you've ever said to me and you know it's a lie. I've made my utter disgust for Trump abundantly clear both here and in the ISF political threads where we've interacted. Shame.
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 8th November 2019, 11:58 AM   #171
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,365
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
From the Daily Mail link to the Millane case given above in comment #159, "Ms Crenfeldt told defence barrister Ian Brookie under cross examination that luminol testing showed that someone with blood on their feet had walked around the apartment, she said."

I noticed that Ms. Crenfeldt referred to probable blood (emphasis added), but the jury might not understand the distinction between a presumptive test (which indicates the possibility of blood) and a confirmatory test (which demonstrates the presence of blood). This distinction is important in the Knox/Sollecito case. If the prosecution failed to perform a confirmatory test, then it is possible that they detected blood, but in my opinion it should not have been presented to the jury.

The article also stated that "The smaller of the stains was more circular and 'could have come from a bucket', Ms Crenfeldt said." This is speculation.

Disclaimer: Nothing in my comments above should be taken to mean that the defendant is not culpable. There are in general two separate issues: one concerns the innocence or guilt of an accused person and the other concerns how carefully the forensics were performed and explained to the jury.
A confirmatory test might not have been performed, which should have been required to confirm the theory, but there was testing done with TMB as well as DNA analysis. All of the samples tested negative with TMB, which even Stefanoni testified to as definitive evidence of no blood, and all but three of the samples did not contain Meredith's DNA profile. This should have been considered overwhelming evidence that the samples did not contain Meredith's blood, or at the very least, raise sufficient reasonable doubt to dismiss it as credible evidence. But that's not what either the Massei or Nencini courts did, which in my opinion proves they were determined to convict and no amount of contradictory or exculpatory evidence was going to sway them.
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 8th November 2019, 12:48 PM   #172
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
There's poor logic here, but it isn't in my post. Why? Because we are talking about the innocent transfer of DNA by contamination which has zero to do with smoking and how long someone lives. But nice try.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Instead of you asking me incessant questions, what about if you attempt to answer some of mine?
Another attempt at diversion, I see.

I didn't ask you a question in my post. The "why?" is clearly rhetorical as I immediately answered it myself.

I do answer your questions, Vix. Read this thread again. It's you who has a long history of failing to answer questions. Even in this short five page continuation thread. Would you like me to quote some? I can.



Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Will you be questioning the integrity of the forensic scientists in the Grace Spillane case? If not, why not?
Quote:
Quote:
Scientist Dianne Crenfeldt, from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), told the jury she had located two approximately circular probable blood stains between the accused's bed and a wardrobe.

The smaller of the stains was more circular and 'could have come from a bucket', Ms Crenfeldt said.

She added: 'The shape of the probable blood staining and the presence of blood on the floor provided strong support that clean up of blood had occurred in this area.'
Exactly what is your point (except to change the subject) and what does this have to do with the Kercher case? It has nothing to do with DNA or DNA transfer. It's about luminol revealing a clean up of probable blood with "several cleaning products". No evidence of a clean up was ever presented in the Kercher case. In fact, the evidence supported no clean up as the footprints were clearly recognizable as such. Can you produce any pictures from the Kercher case that correspond to those in the article you provided? You know, pictures that show luminol revealed large areas of apparent scrubbing or wiping? Let me save you some time: NO.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You constantly claim anyone associated with the prosecution in the Kercher case is unqualified, unprofessional, corrupt and their results 'all wrong'. Does this only apply to Amanda Knox but not to Myra Hindley, Jodie Arias, Rose West? Was Knox spectacularly unlucky to draw such a short straw?
Projecting much there? You are the one who constantly claims all the acquittal judges, defense experts or any other expert who has criticized Stefanoni's work or the prosecution is "bent", "corrupt" or has "prostituted" themselves. You've accused the US State Dept, the Mafia and the Masons as being behind the acquittals.

If I am the one who " constantly claim(s) anyone associated with the prosecution in the Kercher case is unqualified, unprofessional, corrupt and their results 'all wrong', please quote me.

What I HAVE said is that Stefanoni did not follow anti-contamination protocols in the collection of the evidence and that her analysis of the LCN DNA on the knife and the bra hook did not follow proper procedure...all of which were confirmed by the police videos and the C & V report and the Marasca MR.

What I HAVE said is that the police's investigation was inept and unprofessional...which was confirmed by the police videos and the Marasca MR.

What I HAVE said is that the interrogations were illegal and violated RS and AK's rights...which has been confirmed by the ECHR ruling.

Quote:
Conversely, perhaps it's the case everybody is marching in step except you and your cohorts
Conversely, perhaps it's the case that you and your TJMK cohorts are living in an alternate reality.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 8th November 2019 at 12:56 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 8th November 2019, 12:52 PM   #173
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
That is not "interference." There are a number of democracies, including France and Germany, that will not extradite their citizens under any circumstances. Many other countries will not extradite unless certain conditions are met, including, but not limited to:
  • Possibility of capital punishment or torture if extradited
  • Failure to fulfill dual criminality
  • Political crimes
  • Fair trial standards
(Source; emphasis added)




No, that's simply your latest attempt to explain away the acquittal. Had the Italian Supreme Court believed K&S guilty, they would certainly have so ruled, even though they knew the US would not extradite her. This would at least have prevented her from ever setting foot in Italy again, and there would have been an outside chance of her being extradited had she made the mistake of traveling to a country that has a treaty with Italy (as nearly happened to Roman Polanski). Further, it doesn't explain why Sollecito was acquitted. Fail.
There is no evidence the SC knew any such thing. That is a claim made by Vixen which she has, unsurprisingly, failed to ever provide evidence for.
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 8th November 2019, 01:28 PM   #174
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,773
Careless writing on my part: I meant "even if they believed the US wouldn't extradite her."
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 8th November 2019, 01:54 PM   #175
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,153
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That's probably the ugliest thing you've ever said to me and you know it's a lie. I've made my utter disgust for Trump abundantly clear both here and in the ISF political threads where we've interacted. Shame.

It was humour. We all know you are a staunch Democrat.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 8th November 2019, 02:30 PM   #176
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is no evidence the SC knew any such thing. That is a claim made by Vixen which she has, unsurprisingly, failed to ever provide evidence for.
The question of whether or not Amanda Knox, who was present in the US after being provisionally acquitted of the murder/rape charges by the Hellmann Court of Appeal, was extraditable under US law after being provisionally convicted by the Nencini Court of Appeal, is an interesting one. Of course, after the final acquittal of Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito) on the murder/rape charges in 2015 by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, this question lost all practical relevance.

Some PGP and others have presented the view that extradition from the US is simply a reflexive procedure that, under a treaty, must follow after the US receives a request for extradition of a person. This view is far from the truth.

The truth is that the US government executive branch (the Department of State followed by the Department of Justice) reviews any request for extradition in light of the facts of the case, decides whether extradition is justified, and only if it considers extradition to be legally justified by the facts presented and otherwise known, will the extradition case be initiated by the arrest of the person sought. That person has the right of a hearing before a Federal magistrate; the result of the hearing (if holding the person extraditable) may be appealed by the person sought to the US courts by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The extradition treaty with Italy does not require automatic extradition on a request to the US, but does require the Secretary of State to respond with a decision on whether or not the request would be fulfilled and the reasons for any denial of extradition. (The same terms apply to a request to Italy from the US.)


Based upon media reports, an example of a request for extradition from the US that has been (so far) denied or not proceeded is the request of Turkey for the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, who is a citizen of Turkey and permanent resident of the US. "On 23 July 2016, Turkey formally submitted a formal extradition request accompanied by certain documents as supporting evidence." [1] As far as can be ascertained from the media reports, the US government has appears either to have denied or to be proceeding extremely slowly in responding to that request.

On the Gulen case, see:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethul...urkey_tensions

2. https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...thullah-gulen/


Reference [2] is especially useful because it provides a short summary of the US extradition procedure. The following part of the process described in that reference is relevant to the question of whether Amanda Knox would have been extradited following the Nencini Court of Appeal conviction considering the Hellmann Court of Appeal acquittal, and the review of the respective motivation reports and the evidence therein:

"The U.S. secretary of state decides whether to surrender the accused to the requesting government. At this point, following the judicial process and the receipt of a notice of extraditability, the secretary of state can consider issues such as whether there are concerns about humanitarian treatment of the person sought for extradition and the fairness of the proceedings in the country requesting extradition."

If a US Senator or Representative, or the person sought for extradition, informed a US Secretary of State in an extradition case that the person sought had been subject in the country seeking extradition to an unfair trial and conviction based on non-credible evidence, and in fact an earlier court had acquitted based on expert opinion that the evidence was not credible, the SoS would pay close attention to those facts and would be highly unlikely to order that the extradition proceed.

Given that the Nencini conviction was provisional and was under appeal to the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, the SoS would be justified in delaying any response to a request for extradition until a final judgment of conviction was provided by Italy.


Also of interest is 2014 blog article*, by M. Cherif Bassiouni, is also of interest.

"... Bassiouni is Emeritus Professor of Law at DePaul University where he taught from 1964-2012, where he was a founding member of the International Human Rights Law Institute (established in 1990), and served as President from 1990-2007, and then President Emeritus. He is also President, International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa, Italy since 1989. He is the author of International Extradition: United States Law and Practice, Sixth Edition."

* https://blog.oup.com/2014/04/is-aman...ates-to-italy/

Last edited by Numbers; 8th November 2019 at 02:31 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 8th November 2019, 03:24 PM   #177
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
flawed forensics versus wrongful convictions

Vixen brought up the Millane case in New Zealand. This case and some of the other discussion today serves to remind one of several things. One is that overstated forensics is not limited to Italy or to any other nation of which I am aware. IMO skeptics should call it out whenever they see it.* Two is that confirmation bias and unprofessional actions by the police (Anna Donnino, as mentioned upthread) also affect cases all over the world, not just in Italy. Three is that a case may have sub-optimal forensics or tunnel vision, but that does not necessarily mean that there has been a wrongful accusation or conviction. Each case has to be judged on its particulars.
EDT
*however failure to criticize it elsewhere while pointing it out in the Knox/Sollecito case would not mean criticisms directed toward the Knox/Sollecito case were wrong.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 8th November 2019 at 03:53 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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 8th November 2019, 04:34 PM   #178
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was humour. We all know you are a staunch Democrat.
A joke? Humor? Ironically, that is exactly what Trump and his followers claim whenever he puts his foot in his mouth and says something horrendous.
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 8th November 2019, 04:56 PM   #179
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,371
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The question of whether or not Amanda Knox, who was present in the US after being provisionally acquitted of the murder/rape charges by the Hellmann Court of Appeal, was extraditable under US law after being provisionally convicted by the Nencini Court of Appeal, is an interesting one.
Nencini in provisionally condemning both Knox and Sollecito in 2014 specifically said in his oral judgement that Knox was legally abroad. At that point she faced no request for extradition from Italy, nor could she until Cassazione had signed off.

Similarly, Sollecito as legally at large. Nencini could have declared him a flight risk, or likely to reoffend (thus requiring confinement) but chose not to. At the time of Nencini's verdict, Sollecito had been just across the border into (Slovenia), and he came back into Italy where the Carabinieri met him at a hotel to confiscate his passport.

At that point, though, the question of extradition did not exist.
__________________
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 8th November 2019, 04:58 PM   #180
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
A joke? Humor? Ironically, that is exactly what Trump and his followers claim whenever he puts his foot in his mouth and says something horrendous.
The similarities don't end there.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 05:07 PM   #181
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
The similarities don't end there.
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 8th November 2019, 06:06 PM   #182
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Nencini in provisionally condemning both Knox and Sollecito in 2014 specifically said in his oral judgement that Knox was legally abroad. At that point she faced no request for extradition from Italy, nor could she until Cassazione had signed off.

Similarly, Sollecito as legally at large. Nencini could have declared him a flight risk, or likely to reoffend (thus requiring confinement) but chose not to. At the time of Nencini's verdict, Sollecito had been just across the border into (Slovenia), and he came back into Italy where the Carabinieri met him at a hotel to confiscate his passport.

At that point, though, the question of extradition did not exist.
That incident was a perfect example of the media's misrepresentation of the facts...a misrepresentation that the PGP supported. By the way, it was Austria, not Slovenia.
Quote:
ITALIAN RAFFAELLE SOLLECITO has been stopped by police at one of the country’s border crossings, it’s being reported this morning.

According to Italy’s Rai News, he was stopped near the Austrian border. Sollecito’s guilty verdict for the killing of British student Meredith Kercher was reinstated last night.

He was stopped between Udine and Tarvisio, not far from the borders with Austria and Slovenia, according to the Italian report.
https://www.thejournal.ie/sollecito-...91940-Jan2014/

This implies he was stopped from leaving the country. In fact, he was not stopped at all. He had come back into Italy and had checked into a hotel under his own passport.

Quote:
The world was shocked when Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were once again found guilty of the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, and on Jan. 31, Raffaele got into more trouble when Italian authorities caught him at the country’s border!

Raffaele Sollecito, 29, must be terrified after he was once again found guilty of the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher on Jan. 30. Amanda Knox‘s ex-boyfriend was caught allegedly trying to flee the country after the verdict!
Again, this is a total misrepresentation of the true facts. He wasn't "caught" by the police nor was he was trying to leave the country.
Quote:
Raffaele Sollecito is stopped by police close to the Austrian border, after judges reinstated his and Amanda Knox’s murder conviction for the death of British student Meredith Kercher.
How was RS 'stopped' or 'caught' by the police? All these imply, or state, that RS was trying to leave Italy, when the fact is that he had already been out of Italy with his girlfriend and had returned to Italy where he checked into a hotel under his own name. It was the hotel clerk who recognized his name and contacted the police.

TJMK continued this false story:

Quote:
(4) Before the Nencini verdict came out in early 2014, a panicked Sollecito took off to the north in a car and got cold feet (or was warned to stop) at the Austrian border and ignominiously came back.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C1147

Quote:
ERGON: Were you surprised when you heard the news Raffaele Sollecito had been picked up by police close to the Austrian border?
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C552

(RS was not 'picked up' by the police. His passport was confiscated, but he was free to go anywhere in Italy he wanted.)

Quote:
Right after the sentence Sollecito was stopped in Udine about 60km from the Italy/Austrian border and about 40km from the Slovenian border.

Before the verdict of Corte D’Assise d’Appello of Florence Sollecito was a free man, and therefore legally in possession of a passport and the right to cross the border.

Sollecito, instead of waiting for the verdict in the court room, around 12 o’clock that day left with his new girlfriend and arrived in Udine [in north-east Ital]..

Around night time during a snow storm the two of them took refuge in an hotel , and the owner recognizing Sollecito by name, alerted the police that promptly arrived in order to confiscate Sollecito’s passport as decided by the Court.

Sollecito told the media that he had no intention of fleeing the Country.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C703

Sollecito checked into a hotel in Venzone about 40 miles from the border about 1 AM with his then girlfriend. If he was trying to flee the country, why stop on the Italian side instead of driving on into Austria? Why would he use his own, very well known name when he checked in? Why not check in under his girlfriends name and passport? Additionally:

Quote:
The website of the Florence edition of the daily newspaper La Repubblica said that at around 3pm a security camera at Palmanova, south of Udine, had picked up the licence plate of a Mini Cooper belonging to his girlfriend's father.

The car was heading north on the A23 motorway that leads to the border crossing south of Villach in southern Austria.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ies-flee-italy
So the car was recorded just south of Udine going north at 3 pm which meant they had plenty of time to have crossed the border into Austria, as RS claimed, and to have returned to Udine when they checked into the hotel at 1 AM. If they had not gone into Austria, where were they during those several hours?

Quote:
But the police spokesman in Udine said he had no comment to make on whether Knox's ex-boyfriend had crossed and recrossed the border on Thursday.
(The Guardian)

Why not? The police were no friend to Sollecito. If they could have proved he was lying about coming back to Italy, they'd have said so.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 8th November 2019 at 07:00 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 8th November 2019, 09:23 PM   #183
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The question of whether or not Amanda Knox, who was present in the US after being provisionally acquitted of the murder/rape charges by the Hellmann Court of Appeal, was extraditable under US law after being provisionally convicted by the Nencini Court of Appeal, is an interesting one. Of course, after the final acquittal of Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito) on the murder/rape charges in 2015 by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, this question lost all practical relevance.

Some PGP and others have presented the view that extradition from the US is simply a reflexive procedure that, under a treaty, must follow after the US receives a request for extradition of a person. This view is far from the truth.

The truth is that the US government executive branch (the Department of State followed by the Department of Justice) reviews any request for extradition in light of the facts of the case, decides whether extradition is justified, and only if it considers extradition to be legally justified by the facts presented and otherwise known, will the extradition case be initiated by the arrest of the person sought. That person has the right of a hearing before a Federal magistrate; the result of the hearing (if holding the person extraditable) may be appealed by the person sought to the US courts by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The extradition treaty with Italy does not require automatic extradition on a request to the US, but does require the Secretary of State to respond with a decision on whether or not the request would be fulfilled and the reasons for any denial of extradition. (The same terms apply to a request to Italy from the US.)


Based upon media reports, an example of a request for extradition from the US that has been (so far) denied or not proceeded is the request of Turkey for the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, who is a citizen of Turkey and permanent resident of the US. "On 23 July 2016, Turkey formally submitted a formal extradition request accompanied by certain documents as supporting evidence." [1] As far as can be ascertained from the media reports, the US government has appears either to have denied or to be proceeding extremely slowly in responding to that request.

On the Gulen case, see:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethul...urkey_tensions

2. https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...thullah-gulen/


Reference [2] is especially useful because it provides a short summary of the US extradition procedure. The following part of the process described in that reference is relevant to the question of whether Amanda Knox would have been extradited following the Nencini Court of Appeal conviction considering the Hellmann Court of Appeal acquittal, and the review of the respective motivation reports and the evidence therein:

"The U.S. secretary of state decides whether to surrender the accused to the requesting government. At this point, following the judicial process and the receipt of a notice of extraditability, the secretary of state can consider issues such as whether there are concerns about humanitarian treatment of the person sought for extradition and the fairness of the proceedings in the country requesting extradition."

If a US Senator or Representative, or the person sought for extradition, informed a US Secretary of State in an extradition case that the person sought had been subject in the country seeking extradition to an unfair trial and conviction based on non-credible evidence, and in fact an earlier court had acquitted based on expert opinion that the evidence was not credible, the SoS would pay close attention to those facts and would be highly unlikely to order that the extradition proceed.

Given that the Nencini conviction was provisional and was under appeal to the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, the SoS would be justified in delaying any response to a request for extradition until a final judgment of conviction was provided by Italy.


Also of interest is 2014 blog article*, by M. Cherif Bassiouni, is also of interest.

"... Bassiouni is Emeritus Professor of Law at DePaul University where he taught from 1964-2012, where he was a founding member of the International Human Rights Law Institute (established in 1990), and served as President from 1990-2007, and then President Emeritus. He is also President, International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa, Italy since 1989. He is the author of International Extradition: United States Law and Practice, Sixth Edition."

* https://blog.oup.com/2014/04/is-aman...ates-to-italy/
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
1. Nencini in provisionally condemning both Knox and Sollecito in 2014 specifically said in his oral judgement that Knox was legally abroad. 2. At that point she faced no request for extradition from Italy, nor could she until Cassazione had signed off.

Similarly, Sollecito as legally at large. Nencini could have declared him a flight risk, or likely to reoffend (thus requiring confinement) but chose not to. At the time of Nencini's verdict, Sollecito had been just across the border into (Slovenia), and he came back into Italy where the Carabinieri met him at a hotel to confiscate his passport.

At that point, though, 3. the question of extradition did not exist.
Stacyhs, thanks for this post. But I have some questions and comments.

1. Did Nencini actually say or write that Knox was legally abroad in the legal judgment, or was that only a response to a question from a journalist? Is there documented evidence of this?

2. Italy's laws allow it to request an extradition of a person who is an or accused or convicted person, including before a final judgment of conviction is delivered, whether by the CSC or a lower court. The General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal of the relevant district submits a request, including all necessary documents and documentation of the evidence, for the extradition to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice then decides whether to request the extradition immediately, to request the extradition at some later time, or not to request the extradition, informing the judicial authorities of his decision. Extradition requests by Italy are covered by CPP Article 720.

Judgments become final if they are not appealed within the legally specified time limits, or if they cannot be appealed. A judgment by the CSC cannot be appealed and thus is always final. (The Chieffi CSC panel did not issue any judgment on the murder/rape charges after quashing the Hellmann Appeal Court's acquittal.) A final conviction can, however, under certain circumstances, such as a judgment of the ECHR, be reversed through the revision hearing procedure.

I hope that my statement that the US Secretary of State could choose to delay a positive response to a request for extradition until a final judgment was available in the Knox case did not cause confusion.

3. Because of the above issues, an extradition request for Amanda Knox was not necessarily out of the question.

Last edited by Numbers; 8th November 2019 at 09:43 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 8th November 2019, 10:36 PM   #184
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Stacyhs, thanks for this post. But I have some questions and comments.

1. Did Nencini actually say or write that Knox was legally abroad in the legal judgment, or was that only a response to a question from a journalist? Is there documented evidence of this?

2. Italy's laws allow it to request an extradition of a person who is an or accused or convicted person, including before a final judgment of conviction is delivered, whether by the CSC or a lower court. The General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal of the relevant district submits a request, including all necessary documents and documentation of the evidence, for the extradition to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice then decides whether to request the extradition immediately, to request the extradition at some later time, or not to request the extradition, informing the judicial authorities of his decision. Extradition requests by Italy are covered by CPP Article 720.

Judgments become final if they are not appealed within the legally specified time limits, or if they cannot be appealed. A judgment by the CSC cannot be appealed and thus is always final. (The Chieffi CSC panel did not issue any judgment on the murder/rape charges after quashing the Hellmann Appeal Court's acquittal.) A final conviction can, however, under certain circumstances, such as a judgment of the ECHR, be reversed through the revision hearing procedure.

I hope that my statement that the US Secretary of State could choose to delay a positive response to a request for extradition until a final judgment was available in the Knox case did not cause confusion.

3. Because of the above issues, an extradition request for Amanda Knox was not necessarily out of the question.
One consideration that would have been relevant to a hypothetical extradition request from Italy to the US to send Knox to Italy after the Chieffi CSC panel quashed the Hellmann acquittal or the Nencini Appeal Court provisionally convicted her (and Sollecito) would be how such a request would not violate the provision of the US Constitution against double jeopardy.

Some legal experts, such as Professor Bassiouni, whose blog post I cited in a previous post, claimed that the US - Italy treaty precluded her extradition on such grounds. There is, however, US case law that suggests that Bassiouni and some others are misreading the language of that treaty and others. That is, past decisions of US courts did not apply US standards of double jeopardy to extradition requests, and Bassiouni confused the treaty language forbidding extradition in the case of prior acquittal or conviction in the "requested" country (which would be the US in this case) with prior acquittal or conviction in the "requesting country (Italy, in this case). Knox had not previously been convicted or acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher in the US but rather in Italy.

The actual likely US approach to this double jeopardy issue in extradition is found in the record of US Senate Committee on Foreign Releations Hearing 109 - 570*, held 26 July 2006. This hearing was devoted to issues related to the then newly-revised US - UK extradition treaty. The relevant information is found in:

Quote:
Appendix I: Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record
by Members of the Committee

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Attorney General Paul J.
McNulty and Deputy Legal Adviser Samuel Witten by Chairman Lugar
....

Double Jeopardy

Question. A recently-enacted law in the United Kingdom, the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, provides in Part 10 for retrial in certain
cases, even though there has been an acquittal
. How does this comport
with U.S. standards of due process, including the double jeopardy
clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution? ....


Answer. In the United States, the re-prosecution of an individual
after he or she had been acquitted would be barred by the double
jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. ....

Generally, U.S. extradition courts do not inquire into questions of
application and propriety of foreign procedural laws and rights or
require that they comport with our own. This is true even with respect
to procedural guarantees, such as our double jeopardy rules. See Neely
v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109 (1901). Moreover, it would be both difficult
and inappropriate to strictly apply U.S. law regarding double jeopardy
in the extradition context because there is considerable variation
among nations in how and when double jeopardy concepts may apply. For
example, while U.S. double jeopardy concepts bar the government from
appealing a judgment of acquittal, such appeals by the prosecution are
in fact quite common abroad, particularly among countries with a civil
law tradition. See, e.g., Sidali v. Immigration & Naturalization
Service, 107 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 1997). Thus, U.S. courts have held that
even where foreign procedures would have violated our double jeopardy
bar had they occurred in the context of a U.S. criminal prosecution,
this was not a basis for denying extradition. U.S. ex rel. Bloomfield
v. Gengler, 507 F.2d 925, 927-28 (2d Cir. 1974) (affirming extradition
to Canada where Canadian trial court had dismissed charges against
defendants after presentation of all evidence, but prosecution appealed
and appellate court entered judgment of conviction).
Thus, neither the terms of the proposed treaty or any other U.S.
extradition treaty, nor U.S. caselaw, would per se bar extradition
because procedures in the U.K. (or other foreign state) would not
comport with U.S. double jeopardy requirements. On the other hand, a
fugitive may always raise for consideration by the Secretary of State a
significant concern about improper motivation for the extradition
request or fundamental unfairness in the criminal procedures he may
face
.
Now, this is total conjecture by me, but it is a possibility that Amanda Knox and her legal team, consistent with the US government position expressed by the Department of Justice in US Senate Hearing 109 - 570, and anticipating a potential extradition request from Italy, could have sent the US Secretary of State a brief outlining the flaws in the Italian proceedings, including the lack of credible evidence, the suppression and misrepresentation of evidence, the violations of Italian procedural laws, and the violations of fundamental defense rights listed in the Italian Constitution. These flaws constitute a fundamental unfairness in the criminal procedures used against her.

Consistent with those flaws being a fundamental unfairness that denied Knox a fair trial, the ECHR issued its final judgment in Knox v. Italy, finding that Italy had irremediably violated her rights under the Convention to a fair trial in the proceedings that convicted her of calunnia against Lumumba.

*Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...9shrg29831.htm

Last edited by Numbers; 8th November 2019 at 10:51 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 9th November 2019, 12:25 AM   #185
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Stacyhs, thanks for this post. But I have some questions and comments.

1. Did Nencini actually say or write that Knox was legally abroad in the legal judgment, or was that only a response to a question from a journalist? Is there documented evidence of this?

2. Italy's laws allow it to request an extradition of a person who is an or accused or convicted person, including before a final judgment of conviction is delivered, whether by the CSC or a lower court. The General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal of the relevant district submits a request, including all necessary documents and documentation of the evidence, for the extradition to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice then decides whether to request the extradition immediately, to request the extradition at some later time, or not to request the extradition, informing the judicial authorities of his decision. Extradition requests by Italy are covered by CPP Article 720.

Judgments become final if they are not appealed within the legally specified time limits, or if they cannot be appealed. A judgment by the CSC cannot be appealed and thus is always final. (The Chieffi CSC panel did not issue any judgment on the murder/rape charges after quashing the Hellmann Appeal Court's acquittal.) A final conviction can, however, under certain circumstances, such as a judgment of the ECHR, be reversed through the revision hearing procedure.

I hope that my statement that the US Secretary of State could choose to delay a positive response to a request for extradition until a final judgment was available in the Knox case did not cause confusion.

3. Because of the above issues, an extradition request for Amanda Knox was not necessarily out of the question.
Numbers, I think you meant to address your Nencini question to Bill Williams, not me. I can't answer your question regarding Nencini, but it is true that Knox was not legally required by Italy to return for the "3rd" trial.
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 9th November 2019, 12:35 AM   #186
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
One consideration that would have been relevant to a hypothetical extradition request from Italy to the US to send Knox to Italy after the Chieffi CSC panel quashed the Hellmann acquittal or the Nencini Appeal Court provisionally convicted her (and Sollecito) would be how such a request would not violate the provision of the US Constitution against double jeopardy.

Some legal experts, such as Professor Bassiouni, whose blog post I cited in a previous post, claimed that the US - Italy treaty precluded her extradition on such grounds. There is, however, US case law that suggests that Bassiouni and some others are misreading the language of that treaty and others. That is, past decisions of US courts did not apply US standards of double jeopardy to extradition requests, and Bassiouni confused the treaty language forbidding extradition in the case of prior acquittal or conviction in the "requested" country (which would be the US in this case) with prior acquittal or conviction in the "requesting country (Italy, in this case). Knox had not previously been convicted or acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher in the US but rather in Italy.

The actual likely US approach to this double jeopardy issue in extradition is found in the record of US Senate Committee on Foreign Releations Hearing 109 - 570*, held 26 July 2006. This hearing was devoted to issues related to the then newly-revised US - UK extradition treaty. The relevant information is found in:



Now, this is total conjecture by me, but it is a possibility that Amanda Knox and her legal team, consistent with the US government position expressed by the Department of Justice in US Senate Hearing 109 - 570, and anticipating a potential extradition request from Italy, could have sent the US Secretary of State a brief outlining the flaws in the Italian proceedings, including the lack of credible evidence, the suppression and misrepresentation of evidence, the violations of Italian procedural laws, and the violations of fundamental defense rights listed in the Italian Constitution. These flaws constitute a fundamental unfairness in the criminal procedures used against her.

Consistent with those flaws being a fundamental unfairness that denied Knox a fair trial, the ECHR issued its final judgment in Knox v. Italy, finding that Italy had irremediably violated her rights under the Convention to a fair trial in the proceedings that convicted her of calunnia against Lumumba.

*Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...9shrg29831.htm
Interesting. The State Dept may well have considered the fact that Knox was denied her right to a lawyer during her interrogation, the lack of credible evidence against her (especially forensic evidence), and the lack of credibility of the witnesses (Curatolo, Quintavalle, etc.) when considering to extradite or not. Of course, we'll never know as it never happened.
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 9th November 2019, 07:29 AM   #187
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,371
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Stacyhs, thanks for this post. But I have some questions and comments.

1. Did Nencini actually say or write that Knox was legally abroad in the legal judgment, or was that only a response to a question from a journalist? Is there documented evidence of this?
Nencini spoke those words on the day of the judgement in the courtroom. I had assumed he'd been reading from the document in front of him, but there's also the possibility that he'd ad libbed it.

The only citation I might point to is the video of his verdict, if one exists.... a short way of admitting that at this point I don't have access to it.

Later, Knox did an extended interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo where the issue of a theoretical extradition was raised, and both Knox as well as Cuomo talked about it as only being an issue if the March 2015 Cassazione had upheld and finalized the conviction.

So the source for the "she's legally out of the country"? My memory. Everyone's mileage will vary in ascertaining the trustworthiness of that!!!
__________________
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 9th November 2019, 08:00 AM   #188
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 404
Happened to catch this last night;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/pr...itains-killers

Three young men were convicted In 1972 of murdering Maxwell Confaiton on nothing but the basis of "confessions" which consisted of the written notes of the interrogating officers, and despite practically cast-iron alibis for two of them. It was a blatant 'stitch up'.

It led to fundamental changes in the law - an act was passed that mandated what we've come to take for granted ever since; that all interviews under caution MUST be in the presence of council (a lawyer) for the suspect if requested, but more importantly that ONLY statements (hence confessions) which have been recorded are admissible in court.

The MP who was instrumental in getting the act passed remarks near the end that (astoundingly) a great many supposedly developed nations STILL haven't adopted this requirement. That includes Italy, as starkly demonstrated by the "confession" extracted from Amanda Knox that was all the prosecutors had as "probable cause" for arresting her and Sollecito.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 09:05 AM   #189
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Happened to catch this last night;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/pr...itains-killers

Three young men were convicted In 1972 of murdering Maxwell Confaiton on nothing but the basis of "confessions" which consisted of the written notes of the interrogating officers, and despite practically cast-iron alibis for two of them. It was a blatant 'stitch up'.

It led to fundamental changes in the law - an act was passed that mandated what we've come to take for granted ever since; that all interviews under caution MUST be in the presence of council (a lawyer) for the suspect if requested, but more importantly that ONLY statements (hence confessions) which have been recorded are admissible in court.

The MP who was instrumental in getting the act passed remarks near the end that (astoundingly) a great many supposedly developed nations STILL haven't adopted this requirement. That includes Italy, as starkly demonstrated by the "confession" extracted from Amanda Knox that was all the prosecutors had as "probable cause" for arresting her and Sollecito.
Actually, Italian law does require that a suspect, even one not under arrest, can be interrogated (subjected to "investigative questioning") only in the presence of his or her lawyer. For example, CPP Article 350, paragraphs 2 and 3 state (Translation from The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, 2014):

"350.2 Prior to the investigative questioning, the criminal police shall require the suspect to appoint a retained lawyer and, if he does not do so, the police shall follow the provisions of CPP Article 97.3 {the police or prosecutor provide a lawyer from the Bar Association of the district}.

350.3 Investigative questioning shall be performed with the necessary assistance of the lawyer who shall be promptly informed by the criminal police. The lawyer must be present during the investigative questioning."

What happened in the Knox - Sollecito case is that the police and prosecutor did not follow Italian law. They sought cover by pretending that Sollecito and Knox were witnesses rather than suspects. Mignini did, on paper, appoint a lawyer for Knox after she made her coerced statements during the November 5 and 6 interrogations; apparently this lawyer never actually saw her, because she (and Sollecito) were held incommunicado until their arrest hearings.
Mignini was censured by the official Italian body that supervises judges and prosecutors, the High [Superior] Council of the Judiciary, for holding Sollecito incommunicado only on Mignini's own authority - legally, a prosecutor is required to obtain permission from a judge to hold someone incommunicado.
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 9th November 2019, 09:41 AM   #190
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,365
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Nencini spoke those words on the day of the judgement in the courtroom. I had assumed he'd been reading from the document in front of him, but there's also the possibility that he'd ad libbed it.

The only citation I might point to is the video of his verdict, if one exists.... a short way of admitting that at this point I don't have access to it.

Later, Knox did an extended interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo where the issue of a theoretical extradition was raised, and both Knox as well as Cuomo talked about it as only being an issue if the March 2015 Cassazione had upheld and finalized the conviction.

So the source for the "she's legally out of the country"? My memory. Everyone's mileage will vary in ascertaining the trustworthiness of that!!!
I'm not sure why this is even an issue. Amanda was acquitted by Hellmann and the court declared she was free to go. Italy did not try to keep her in the country. No one questions she was legally in the US at the time the Nencini court re-convicted her. And there is no evidence Italy ever formally requested extradition. So whether Italy could have requested it is moot. She was legally in the US and Italy never submitted a request for extradition.

OK, so what am I missing?
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 9th November 2019, 10:08 AM   #191
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Nencini spoke those words on the day of the judgement in the courtroom. I had assumed he'd been reading from the document in front of him, but there's also the possibility that he'd ad libbed it.

The only citation I might point to is the video of his verdict, if one exists.... a short way of admitting that at this point I don't have access to it.

Later, Knox did an extended interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo where the issue of a theoretical extradition was raised, and both Knox as well as Cuomo talked about it as only being an issue if the March 2015 Cassazione had upheld and finalized the conviction.

So the source for the "she's legally out of the country"? My memory. Everyone's mileage will vary in ascertaining the trustworthiness of that!!!
It would be interesting to have some more information, including documentation, relating to Nencini's (alleged) statement.

It's also a question of the meaning of the (alleged) statement.

The meaning, as I interpret it, is that:

1) Amanda Knox was provisionally acquitted (as was Raffaele Sollecito) of the murder/rape charges by the Hellmann Appeal Court judgment.

2) The Hellmann Appeal Court provisionally convicted her of calunnia against Lumumba, but the sentence imposed was covered by the time she had already served in prison under remand.

3) Therefore, there was no legal reason to detain her; she (and Sollecito) had to be immediately be released from detention (in accordance with ECHR case-law).

4) Because of the provisional acquittal, Knox was legally entitled to leave Italy, even if the prosecution intended to file an appeal to the CSC against her acquittal on the murder/rape charges and on the denial of "aggravated" circumstances in the calunnia conviction.

5) Under Italian law, any future trial after the provisional acquittal could be held in absentia (without Knox present), if Knox chose not to return to Italy after the provisional acquittal. Thus, there was no need for Italy to extradite Knox after the Chieffi CSC panel quashed the Hellmann Appeal Court provisional acquittal. Quashing the provisional acquittal did not mean that she was in any legal sense provisionally or finally convicted (contrary to the views of some); it was the task of the referral court (Nencini Appeal Court) to independently judge the case. Thus, there was no necessity, under Italian law, for Italy to seek Knox's extradition prior to the Nencini provision conviction.

6.a) Apparently, the Nencini Appeal Court verdict did not include any provision or order to have Knox or Sollecito arrested and sent back to prison. Sollecito, who remained in Italy, was not detained, although his passport apparently was taken by police. If this absence of an order to detain from the Nencini Appeal Court is indeed true, it may or may not have precluded the prosecutor from requesting the Italian Minister of Justice to initiate a request for the extradition of Knox from the US. No mention of an actual extradition request ever appeared in the media; such requests are generally treated as confidential by the US before the Secretary of State decides to execute the request, but there was apparently no leak of any information on a request (leaks in prominent cases do sometimes happen).

6.b) The entire Nencini Court of Appeal verdict (it was grossly flawed) and how no enforcement was pursued suggests that it may have been motivated by Italian judicial politics, including perhaps a perceived continuing need to protect the police and Mignini from legal accountability for official misconduct (for example, the crimes alleged against the police and Mignini implied by Amanda Knox's testimony and appeals in the murder/rape - calunnia against Lumumba trial, as claimed by the prosecutor in Knox's trial for continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini before the Boninsegna court).

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2019 at 11:04 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 9th November 2019, 10:13 AM   #192
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm not sure why this is even an issue. Amanda was acquitted by Hellmann and the court declared she was free to go. Italy did not try to keep her in the country. No one questions she was legally in the US at the time the Nencini court re-convicted her. And there is no evidence Italy ever formally requested extradition. So whether Italy could have requested it is moot. She was legally in the US and Italy never submitted a request for extradition.

OK, so what am I missing?
Yes, it is not practically significant for Knox considering the final definitive acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel.

And apparently there was never any order issued by the Nencini Appeal Court to arrest and detain Knox or Sollecito.

I find the legal issues interesting, in part because they touch on fundamental US constitutional issues that I feel are not completely explicitly resolved in US case law or legislation.

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2019 at 11:02 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 9th November 2019, 11:55 AM   #193
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 770
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Stacyhs, thanks for this post. But I have some questions and comments.

1. Did Nencini actually say or write that Knox was legally abroad in the legal judgment, or was that only a response to a question from a journalist? Is there documented evidence of this?
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Nencini spoke those words on the day of the judgement in the courtroom. I had assumed he'd been reading from the document in front of him, but there's also the possibility that he'd ad libbed it.

The only citation I might point to is the video of his verdict, if one exists.... a short way of admitting that at this point I don't have access to it.

Later, Knox did an extended interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo where the issue of a theoretical extradition was raised, and both Knox as well as Cuomo talked about it as only being an issue if the March 2015 Cassazione had upheld and finalized the conviction.

So the source for the "she's legally out of the country"? My memory. Everyone's mileage will vary in ascertaining the trustworthiness of that!!!
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It would be interesting to have some more information, including documentation, relating to Nencini's (alleged) statement.

It's also a question of the meaning of the (alleged) statement.

The meaning, as I interpret it, is that:

1) Amanda Knox was provisionally acquitted (as was Raffaele Sollecito) of the murder/rape charges by the Hellmann Appeal Court judgment.

2) The Hellmann Appeal Court provisionally convicted her of calunnia against Lumumba, but the sentence imposed was covered by the time she had already served in prison under remand.

3) Therefore, there was no legal reason to detain her; she (and Sollecito) had to be immediately be released from detention (in accordance with ECHR case-law).

4) Because of the provisional acquittal, Knox was legally entitled to leave Italy, even if the prosecution intended to file an appeal to the CSC against her acquittal on the murder/rape charges and on the denial of "aggravated" circumstances in the calunnia conviction.

5) Under Italian law, any future trial after the provisional acquittal could be held in absentia (without Knox present), if Knox chose not to return to Italy after the provisional acquittal. Thus, there was no need for Italy to extradite Knox after the Chieffi CSC panel quashed the Hellmann Appeal Court provisional acquittal. Quashing the provisional acquittal did not mean that she was in any legal sense provisionally or finally convicted (contrary to the views of some); it was the task of the referral court (Nencini Appeal Court) to independently judge the case. Thus, there was no necessity, under Italian law, for Italy to seek Knox's extradition prior to the Nencini provision conviction.

6.a) Apparently, the Nencini Appeal Court verdict did not include any provision or order to have Knox or Sollecito arrested and sent back to prison. Sollecito, who remained in Italy, was not detained, although his passport apparently was taken by police. If this absence of an order to detain from the Nencini Appeal Court is indeed true, it may or may not have precluded the prosecutor from requesting the Italian Minister of Justice to initiate a request for the extradition of Knox from the US. No mention of an actual extradition request ever appeared in the media; such requests are generally treated as confidential by the US before the Secretary of State decides to execute the request, but there was apparently no leak of any information on a request (leaks in prominent cases do sometimes happen).

6.b) The entire Nencini Court of Appeal verdict (it was grossly flawed) and how no enforcement was pursued suggests that it may have been motivated by Italian judicial politics, including perhaps a perceived continuing need to protect the police and Mignini from legal accountability for official misconduct (for example, the crimes alleged against the police and Mignini implied by Amanda Knox's testimony and appeals in the murder/rape - calunnia against Lumumba trial, as claimed by the prosecutor in Knox's trial for continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini before the Boninsegna court).
Bill is right, Nencini spoke those words on the day of the judgement in the courtroom. See pages 3 and 4 of the transcript.
Quote:
ORDINANZA

Vista la richiesta avanzata dai Procuratore Generale di applicazione a KNOX AMANDA MARIE e SOLLECITO RAFFAELE . di misura cautelare comunque idonea a garantire le esigenze connesse alla esecuzione della sentenza di condanna;
ritenuto che allo stato l'unica esigenza cautelare conseguente da condanna degli imputati alla pena detentiva oggi irrogata con separata sentenza deve essere individuata in quella di prevenire il pericolo di fuga;
ritenuto che d o stato, per quanto attiene d'imputata KNOX Amanda Marie la stessa, cittadina statunitense, trovasi legittimamente nel Paese di origine in conseguenza di sentenza di assoluzione in grado di appello successivamente annullata, e pertanto non sussiste oggettivamente il pericolo di fuga dal territorio nazionaie che la misura cautelare è finalizzata a prevenire;
ritenuto che, diversamente in relazione a Sollecito Raffaele, cittadino italiano con passaporto italiano, lo stesso, pur non sottraendosi alla partecipazione al giudizio, ha evidenziato la disponibilità di supporti logistici in Paesi in relazione ai quali lo Stato italiano non risulta legato da accordi di assistenza giudiziaria, e pertanto sussiste il concreto ed attuale pericolo che l'imputato possa sottrarsi con la fuga d a giurisdizione italiana;
ritenuto che, ai fini cautelari sopra indicati, deve ritenersi idonea la misura del divieto di espatrio attuata mediante il ritiro del passaporto e degli altri documenti di identità validi per l'espatrio;

P.Q.M.

Respinge la richiesta avanzata dal Procuratore Generale di applicazione di misura cautelare nei confronti di KNOX Amanda Marie;
I'm trying to find out what PM Crini actually "requested"...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."

Last edited by Methos; 9th November 2019 at 12:16 PM.
Methos 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 9th November 2019, 12:29 PM   #194
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Bill is right, Nencini spoke those words on the day of the judgement in the courtroom. See pages 3 and 4 of the transcript.


I'm trying to find out what PM Crini actually "requested"...
Methos, thanks for finding this. Your skills in finding information are fantastic!

Here is a Google translation of the Italian text from Nencini:

"Given the request made by the General Prosecutor of application to KNOX AMANDA MARIE and SOLLECITO RAFFAELE. as a precautionary measure, however, suitable for guaranteeing the requirements related to the execution of the sentence;
considered that at present the only precautionary requirement resulting from the sentencing of the defendants to the custodial sentence now imposed with a separate sentence must be identified in that of preventing the risk of escape;

considered that the state, as far as the defendant KNOX Amanda Marie is concerned, the same, a US citizen, is legitimately found in the country of origin as a consequence of the acquittal sentence in degree of appeal subsequently canceled, and therefore there is no objective danger of escape from the national territory that the precautionary measure is aimed at preventing;

considered that, otherwise in relation to Sollecito Raffaele, an Italian citizen with an Italian passport, the latter, while not avoiding participation in the trial, highlighted the availability of logistical support in countries in relation to which the Italian State is not bound by assistance agreements judicial, and therefore there exists the concrete and actual danger that the accused can escape with the escape from Italian jurisdiction;

having considered that, for the aforementioned precautionary purposes, the measure of the expatriation ban implemented through the withdrawal of the passport and other valid identity documents for expatriation should be considered;

P.Q.M.

Rejects the request made by the Attorney General for the application of a precautionary measure against KNOX Amanda Marie "

I suspect that the prosecutor may have requested precautionary detention for Amanda Knox, implying that a request for extradition would be needed; it would be great if this could be verified or not by means of the original documentation.

For the actual order from Nencini to seize Raffaele Sollecito's passport, I believe that is what's stated in the "Applica" section on pages 4-5.

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2019 at 12:35 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 9th November 2019, 01:23 PM   #195
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 404
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Actually, Italian law does require that a suspect, even one not under arrest, can be interrogated (subjected to "investigative questioning") only in the presence of his or her lawyer. For example, CPP Article 350, paragraphs 2 and 3 state (Translation from The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, 2014):

"350.2 Prior to the investigative questioning, the criminal police shall require the suspect to appoint a retained lawyer and, if he does not do so, the police shall follow the provisions of CPP Article 97.3 {the police or prosecutor provide a lawyer from the Bar Association of the district}.

350.3 Investigative questioning shall be performed with the necessary assistance of the lawyer who shall be promptly informed by the criminal police. The lawyer must be present during the investigative questioning."

What happened in the Knox - Sollecito case is that the police and prosecutor did not follow Italian law. They sought cover by pretending that Sollecito and Knox were witnesses rather than suspects. Mignini did, on paper, appoint a lawyer for Knox after she made her coerced statements during the November 5 and 6 interrogations; apparently this lawyer never actually saw her, because she (and Sollecito) were held incommunicado until their arrest hearings.
Mignini was censured by the official Italian body that supervises judges and prosecutors, the High [Superior] Council of the Judiciary, for holding Sollecito incommunicado only on Mignini's own authority - legally, a prosecutor is required to obtain permission from a judge to hold someone incommunicado.
Sure, but I was referring to the requirement that any statements made during questioning/interrogation have to be recorded to be admissible. The confession Knox signed consisted of a short 'precis' in Italian (in almost the form of a story) supposedly based on what she had said during questioning.

However, I've now realised that it wasn't actually allowed in Knox's and Sollecito's trial, but unfortunately that only suited the prosecution - the only probable cause given for making the arrests in the first place (the evidence used against them had yet to be fabricated discovered) was never scrutinised in court.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 02:42 PM   #196
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Sure, but I was referring to the requirement that any statements made during questioning/interrogation have to be recorded to be admissible. The confession Knox signed consisted of a short 'precis' in Italian (in almost the form of a story) supposedly based on what she had said during questioning.

However, I've now realised that it wasn't actually allowed in Knox's and Sollecito's trial, but unfortunately that only suited the prosecution - the only probable cause given for making the arrests in the first place (the evidence used against them had yet to be fabricated discovered) was never scrutinised in court.
Well, you've hit upon some real complications in the case in your post.

The coerced false statements signed by Knox during the Nov. 5/6 interrogations were allowed in court and used against her for the charges of aggravated calunnia against Lumumba. She was provisionally convicted of "simple" calunnia by the Hellmann Appeal Court and this conviction was finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel.

On the other hand, the statements were not allowed to be used against her for the murder/rape trial, because they were taken in violation of CPP Article 63. That is, the police and prosecutor did not follow Italian procedural law of stopping the interrogation and getting her a lawyer as soon as she made a first incriminating statement, which itself couldn't be used against because she was interrogated without a lawyer, and even more so for the second statement. This was the decision of the Gemelli CSC panel in 2008, in their review of Knox's appeal of detention.

However, the calunnia and murder/rape trials were held at the same time in the presence of the same professional and lay judges, and in fact the motivation reports of the Chieffi CSC panel and the Nencini Appeal Court both used her statements against her for both sets of charges.

The Marasca CSC panel in fact did a kind of review of the statements for the calunnia conviction and found no problem with their use in the calunnia conviction. It did have to include a falsehood or two in its justification, but it wanted to make the point that even if the ECHR found that Knox's rights were violated, resulting in an unfair trial, in her conviction for calunnia, an Italian revision hearing would not quash the conviction.

You are free to make what you will of these Italianesque complications.

We shall see what the Italian authorities propose to do about the final ECHR judgment against Italy in Knox v. Italy.

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2019 at 02:45 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 9th November 2019, 10:47 PM   #197
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,371
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Methos, thanks for finding this. Your skills in finding information are fantastic!
There's the Library of Congress, there's enrolling in a Master's Degree program in Archive Science at Yale, or buying time at the AI Research Laboratory at MIT....

Mostly we just use Methos.
__________________
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 10th November 2019, 08:25 AM   #198
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
Inside the Cell by Erin Murphy

Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Thanks Chris, I remember this case. Certainly a wonderful reference case for DNA transfer.

Are you aware of any additional information on this? Specifically, I'd be curious to know where the construction worker's DNA was (if known) and how it got onto Annie's clothes. I would assume it occurred when her clothes were hidden in the ceiling (secondary transfer) but if Clark touched something that contained the construction worker's DNA and then transferred it onto Annie's underwear, then this would be a proven case of tertiary transfer.

Regardless, I guess this destroys Vixen's belief that DNA transfer can't happen after 24 hours, although I'm sure she'll find a way to dismiss this case as not relevant.
Professor Murphy's book Inside the Cell discussed this case on pp. 33-34. It sounds as if Ms. Lee's underwear snagged a pipe, and that might have been the cause of the transfer. It also sounds as if more than one profile of this worker might have been recovered. It is unclear what her source material was, but I remember reading some news articles at the time (circa 2010).
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 10th November 2019 at 08:55 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 10th November 2019, 10:46 AM   #199
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,153
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That incident was a perfect example of the media's misrepresentation of the facts...a misrepresentation that the PGP supported. By the way, it was Austria, not Slovenia.

https://www.thejournal.ie/sollecito-...91940-Jan2014/

This implies he was stopped from leaving the country. In fact, he was not stopped at all. He had come back into Italy and had checked into a hotel under his own passport.



Again, this is a total misrepresentation of the true facts. He wasn't "caught" by the police nor was he was trying to leave the country.


How was RS 'stopped' or 'caught' by the police? All these imply, or state, that RS was trying to leave Italy, when the fact is that he had already been out of Italy with his girlfriend and had returned to Italy where he checked into a hotel under his own name. It was the hotel clerk who recognized his name and contacted the police.

TJMK continued this false story:


http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C1147


http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C552

(RS was not 'picked up' by the police. His passport was confiscated, but he was free to go anywhere in Italy he wanted.)


http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C703

Sollecito checked into a hotel in Venzone about 40 miles from the border about 1 AM with his then girlfriend. If he was trying to flee the country, why stop on the Italian side instead of driving on into Austria? Why would he use his own, very well known name when he checked in? Why not check in under his girlfriends name and passport? Additionally:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ies-flee-italy
So the car was recorded just south of Udine going north at 3 pm which meant they had plenty of time to have crossed the border into Austria, as RS claimed, and to have returned to Udine when they checked into the hotel at 1 AM. If they had not gone into Austria, where were they during those several hours?


(The Guardian)

Why not? The police were no friend to Sollecito. If they could have proved he was lying about coming back to Italy, they'd have said so.
Er, did you miss the bit that said, 'snow storm'?
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 10th November 2019, 11:46 AM   #200
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,437
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, did you miss the bit that said, 'snow storm'?
Er, did you miss the bits that said:

Quote:
The website of the Florence edition of the daily newspaper La Repubblica said that at around 3pm a security camera at Palmanova, south of Udine, had picked up the licence plate of a Mini Cooper belonging to his girlfriend's father.
Quote:
Around night time during a snow storm the two of them took refuge in an hotel
Palmanova is 16 miles (26 km) south of Udine, about a 25 minute drive.
The car was seen on video there at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The snowstorm was that night and they checked into a hotel at 1 o'clock in the morning. Can you spot the flaw in your post? If not, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

As I said, if Sollecito were trying to hide from the police, he would not have checked into a hotel under his own name. He'd have had his girlfriend check in for them.
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
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 07:00 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.