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

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


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

Reply
Old 23rd May 2018, 05:11 PM   #401
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yeah..... that's not what happened though, is it Vixen?

You see, suppose I was writing a media article on the funeral of (camp UK TV personality) Dale Winton. I wouldn't just google something like "Winton photo" - and then unintentionally place into the article a photo of a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT person who happened to share the surname "Winton" - e.g. Sir Nicholas Winton (who saved Jewish children in occupied Europe in WWII).

Likewise, whoever wrote this article - assuming he/she had even a tiny amount of competence as a journalist - would not have inadvertently included a photo of Francesco Sollecito in a story about Rocco Sollecito.

No, Vixen. In all probability, what ACTUALLY happened here is that someone in the pro-guilt community mendaciously added in that photo of Francesco Sollecito (taken in a completely different place at a completely different time....), in order to try to deceive people into thinking that the article was associating Francesco Sollecito with any kind of eulogy for Rocco Sollecito.

Again: I realise that credulous poor-thinkers with gigantic inbuilt biases might find it extremely difficult to understand/accept that this is what the evidence suggests. And for the pro-guilt community, OF COURSE it's easier and much more convenient to "believe" that we were all innocently led astray by the careless mistake of a journalist (in Vixen-parlance: "It weren't our fault, guvnor!"). But I guess that's illustrative of the difference between almost all pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators (who use critical thinking and rational analysis, with absence of prior judgement or any inbuilt bias, to look at all the (rational, credible) evidence and draw objective conclusions from it) and almost all pro-guilt commentators (who don't......).
You silly, silly boy. Run along now.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 05:13 PM   #402
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
What would be interesting would be if someone with intellectual honesty - and sufficient intellect and perspicacity - within the pro-guilt community would seek to find out exactly WHO among them consciously and knowingly doctored that media article in this way, in a deliberately deceptive attempt to link Francesco Sollecito with Rocco Sollecito. But I think we all know that will never, ever happen.
So you are claiming someone hacked the owner of the website to insert a pic of Frankie yet didn't bother to name him.

It is not even about the Kercher murder.

But then you are good at outlandish conjecture.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 05:32 PM   #403
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop looking for trouble where none exists.

The author of the article on the mafia innocuously included a picture of a figure exiting a building, alongside a picture of Rocco Sollecito, and someone recognised it as Raff's dad.

Picture now gone.

Move along, nothing to see.
It was YOU who claimed there was a photo showing Francesco S. at Rocco's (non-existent) memorial mass...a photo that you claimed "is in ISF archives" and that many on here "would remember seeing".

It was Ergon, Quennell, you, and other guilters who spread that lie on the internet, not us. So I suggest you and they move along and stop spreading this proven lie.
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 23rd May 2018, 05:39 PM   #404
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,783
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So you are claiming someone hacked the owner of the website to insert a pic of Frankie yet didn't bother to name him.

It is not even about the Kercher murder.

But then you are good at outlandish conjecture.
It's hardly conjecture. Someone at TJMK fabricated evidence and you are on ISF spreading that lie. Either it's an honest mistake on your part or it's another example of an absence of integrity.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 05:42 PM   #405
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So you are claiming someone hacked the owner of the website to insert a pic of Frankie yet didn't bother to name him.

It is not even about the Kercher murder.

But then you are good at outlandish conjecture.
The original website refers to two pictures of the "Sollecito boss". Note that is singular, not plural. So why would the picture you posted show two different people? A picture found on Perugia.net? A picture photoshopped to include another "comparison' photo of Francesco? Yes: why would someone do that? What could the motive possibly be? Hmmmmm…

"But then you are good at outlandish conjecture."

Oh, the irony! The irony!
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 23rd May 2018, 05:50 PM   #406
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The original website refers to two pictures of the "Sollecito boss". Note that is singular, not plural. So why would the picture you posted show two different people? A picture found on Perugia.net? A picture photoshopped to include another "comparison' photo of Francesco? Yes: why would someone do that? What could the motive possibly be? Hmmmmm…

"But then you are good at outlandish conjecture."

Oh, the irony! The irony!

It is obviously a straightforward error by the person who wrote the article on that website.

It is actually not uncommon for newspaper stories to depict the wrong person in a photo. There was one recently.

You don't really care about this, you just want to purvey the vilest trolling.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 06:02 PM   #407
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is obviously a straightforward error by the person who wrote the article on that website.

It is actually not uncommon for newspaper stories to depict the wrong person in a photo. There was one recently.

You don't really care about this, you just want to purvey the vilest trolling.
You're alleging a vast high level mafia conspiracy to free a psycho killer twerp nobody for no reason, then for proof you link some bogus image. We're going to make fun of you and call you out on your ****. Deal with it gosh.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 06:05 PM   #408
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is obviously a straightforward error by the person who wrote the article on that website.

It is actually not uncommon for newspaper stories to depict the wrong person in a photo. There was one recently.

You don't really care about this, you just want to purvey the vilest trolling.
Oh my...someone is using her new favorite word in an attempt to distract from the fact that she (and Quennell,et al.) are WRONG about Francesco S. attending a memorial mass that never happened.

Are you ready to admit you and Quennell are wrong about this? You know, actually use the word "wrong"?
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 23rd May 2018, 06:11 PM   #409
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,009
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The original website refers to two pictures of the "Sollecito boss". Note that is singular, not plural. So why would the picture you posted show two different people? A picture found on Perugia.net? A picture photoshopped to include another "comparison' photo of Francesco? Yes: why would someone do that? What could the motive possibly be? Hmmmmm…

"But then you are good at outlandish conjecture."

Oh, the irony! The irony!
To be honest, I'm trying to peel back the onion and, while it stinks, I'll be damned if I can figure out what happened here.

deliapress.it runs an article and has within it a jpeg which can no longer be loaded. That jpeg is sourced from TJMK, though I can't find it (4092.jpg) anywhere on the site (perhaps removed, perhaps stored in a members only area). So we can't know what that jpeg was though we can assume it was at least supposed to be a photo of Rocco Sollecito. Meanwhile, Vixen references a jpeg on dot net that is a collage of photos taken from various locations at various times, with no connection between the photos. The jpeg is titled "rocco mass". It's an obvious attempt to mislead people into thinking the mass took place (it didn't) and that Francesco was there (by using a photo taken years earlier of Francesco leaving the courthouse). This tactic by dot nut is not surprising, they are as dishonest and sleazy as TJMK. However, I'm not at all convinced there is a connection between the missing TJMK photo and the jpeg on dot nut.

I thought perhaps TJMK was the original author of the collage, but then why would deliapress.it link to it? It had no connection to the article other than the photo of Rocco but there are hundreds of photos of Rocco on the Internet so there was no need to link to a collage on TJMK.

ETA: I just found 4092 on TJMK and it's the photo of Francesco leaving the courthouse. So it's not the collage found on dot nut, but it's also not Rocco as implied by the caption. Something still seems fishy. I find it hard to believe deliapress.it erroneously posted a picture of Francesco when they meant to picture Rocco.

Last edited by TruthCalls; 23rd May 2018 at 06:25 PM.
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 23rd May 2018, 06:23 PM   #410
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
To be honest, I'm trying to peel back the onion and, while it stinks, I'll be damned if I can figure out what happened here.

deliapress.it runs an article and has within it a jpeg which can no longer be loaded. That jpeg is sourced from TJMK, though I can't find it (4092.jpg) anywhere on the site (perhaps removed, perhaps stored in a members only area). So we can't know what that jpeg was though we can assume it was at least supposed to be a photo of Rocco Sollecito. Meanwhile, Vixen references a jpeg on dot net that is a collage of photos taken from various locations at various times, with no connection between the photos. The jpeg is titled "rocco mass". It's an obvious attempt to mislead people into thinking the mass took place (it didn't) and that Francesco was there (by using a photo taken years earlier of Francesco leaving the courthouse). This tactic by dot nut is not surprising, they are as dishonest and sleazy as TJMK. However, I'm not at all convinced there is a connection between the missing TJMK photo and the jpeg on dot nut.

I thought perhaps TJMK was the original author of the collage, but then why would deliapress.it link to it? It had no connection to the article other than the photo of Rocco but there are hundreds of photos of Rocco on the Internet so there was no need to link to a collage on TJMK.
Most likely we'll never know what happened in this case. But what we do know is that:
1. Francesco never attended a memorial mass for Rocco as the mass never happened.
2. There is no evidence at all that Francesco and Raffaele are closely related to or have any connection to Rocco or the mafia.
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 23rd May 2018, 06:24 PM   #411
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,783
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is obviously a straightforward error by the person who wrote the article on that website.

It is actually not uncommon for newspaper stories to depict the wrong person in a photo. There was one recently.

You don't really care about this, you just want to purvey the vilest trolling.
No, in fact it obviously a deliberate and outright fabrication. A liar that included the manipulation and distortion of photographic evidence. Unlike, the shoeprint, this is a misuse of a photo editing application like PhotoShop.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 06:55 PM   #412
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,748
ECHR NEWSFLASH

NEWSFLASH: Application still dead in the water

E-mail from the European Court regarding Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your message and please find here the information we can provide in response.
1. Both parties’ observations have been received by the Court’s Registry.
2. No decision as to the admissibility of the application has been taken yet.
We hope this helps.
With best wishes,
ECHR – Press Unit

Source: Ergon
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 06:57 PM   #413
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,009
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Most likely we'll never know what happened in this case. But what we do know is that:
1. Francesco never attended a memorial mass for Rocco as the mass never happened.
2. There is no evidence at all that Francesco and Raffaele are closely related to or have any connection to Rocco or the mafia.
Very true and that IS what is important.

But I still would like to know what happened here. I don't put it past Quennell to have realized deliapress.it was using a photo of Rocco that TJMK was hosting and switched out the photo, resulting in a photo of Francesco in an article about a memorial mass for Rocco (that never happened, but why would Quennell let that stop him). Anything to claim a mafia connection.
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 23rd May 2018, 07:01 PM   #414
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
NEWSFLASH: Application still dead in the water

E-mail from the European Court regarding Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your message and please find here the information we can provide in response.
1. Both parties’ observations have been received by the Court’s Registry.
2. No decision as to the admissibility of the application has been taken yet.
We hope this helps.
With best wishes,
ECHR – Press Unit

Source: Ergon
So Italy has sent in their response too. I wonder what it was? Hopefully they went with something better than their police/prosecution recent interview "we had to get to our suspect fast before her mom rescued her" I don't think that will fly.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 07:10 PM   #415
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,342
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
NEWSFLASH: Application still dead in the water

E-mail from the European Court regarding Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your message and please find here the information we can provide in response.
1. Both parties’ observations have been received by the Court’s Registry.
2. No decision as to the admissibility of the application has been taken yet.
We hope this helps.
With best wishes,
ECHR – Press Unit

Source: Ergon


Umm... don't you mean "application still pending"? It seems you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "dead in the water". Or maybe you DO understand its meaning, and you deliberately employed it misleadingly? Which is it, Vixen?

(I do enjoy the notion of Ergon(!) routinely emailing the ECHR communications department to try to get updates though!)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 07:18 PM   #416
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,342
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You silly, silly boy. Run along now.

Uhhhhhhhhhh...... WHAT?

It's a while since I've seen such a pathetic, unsubstantive "response" to a post - a "response" which manifestly fails to address either a) any details of the post to which it was "responding", or b) anything related to this case whatsoever. Just a bizarre personal insult.

I wonder if you know yet that you were wrong about 1) there being any reliable evidence at all of Francesco Sollecito attending any form of eulogy for Rocco Sollecito (there is none whatsoever); and/or 2) the provenance, reliability and credibility of the "evidence" you so triumphantly produced in the form of that set of photos (the evidence very strongly supports the contention that someone within the pro-guilt community doctored the article in question by inserting additional photographs, in a mendacious attempt to link Francesco Sollecito to Rocco Sollecito)?

Or will you quietly try to handwave this one away while misdirecting by starting out on another issue - once again?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 07:21 PM   #417
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
NEWSFLASH: Application still dead in the water

E-mail from the European Court regarding Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your message and please find here the information we can provide in response.
1. Both parties’ observations have been received by the Court’s Registry.
2. No decision as to the admissibility of the application has been taken yet.
We hope this helps.
With best wishes,
ECHR – Press Unit

Source: Ergon
In other words, the case is still going through the usual painstakingly slow procedures. What a "NEWSFLASH".
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 23rd May 2018, 07:27 PM   #418
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
[quote=LondonJohn;12303481]Uhhhhhhhhhh...... WHAT?

It's a while since I've seen such a pathetic, unsubstantive "response" to a post - a "response" which manifestly fails to address either a) any details of the post to which it was "responding", or b) anything related to this case whatsoever. Just a bizarre personal insult.

I wonder if you know yet that you were wrong about 1) there being any reliable evidence at all of Francesco Sollecito attending any form of eulogy for Rocco Sollecito (there is none whatsoever); and/or 2) the provenance, reliability and credibility of the "evidence" you so triumphantly produced in the form of that set of photos (the evidence very strongly supports the contention that someone within the pro-guilt community doctored the article in question by inserting additional photographs, in a mendacious attempt to link Francesco Sollecito to Rocco Sollecito)?

Or will you quietly try to handwave this one away while misdirecting by starting out on another issue - once again?[/QUOTE]

(Raising my hand eagerly and waving it to get your attention)

I know! I know! Let me answer it! Let me answer it! The correct answer is: She is trying to avoid having to admit she was wrong and trying to direct our attention elsewhere to something that is completely un-NEWSFLASH worthy!
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 23rd May 2018, 07:28 PM   #419
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,342
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
So Italy has sent in their response too. I wonder what it was? Hopefully they went with something better than their police/prosecution recent interview "we had to get to our suspect fast before her mom rescued her" I don't think that will fly.

Oh they'll almost certainly try once again with "We simply called Knox in for a friendly chat to see if she had further information that could help our investigation, and then she simply blurted out the accusation against Lumumba out of nowhere!".

As (apparently) incorrect as the above scenario is*, the interesting thing IMO will be how they try to address what happened next. After all, even if the above scenario truly had occurred, Italian law dictated that the police should immediately have terminated the interview, appraised Knox of her rights, got her a lawyer, and from then on only the PM could interview her and only in the presence of her lawyer. What they absolutely could/should not have done in the aftermath of her verbal "confession/accusation" was type up her statement and get her to sign it - all without having been informed of her rights or being given access to legal counsel.


* IMO there is very strong evidence to suggest that in fact Knox was coerced - almost certainly unlawfully - into naming Lumumba as the killer. This evidence takes the form of a) the court testimony of the "interpreter" Donnino (which can only support the idea that the police were instructing Knox to "remember" certain events); b) the revealing "eventually (Knox) buckled and told us what we already knew to be correct" words of Perugia Police Chief De Felice to reporters the following day; and c) the consistent account of Knox herself.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 08:11 PM   #420
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,009
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh they'll almost certainly try once again with "We simply called Knox in for a friendly chat to see if she had further information that could help our investigation, and then she simply blurted out the accusation against Lumumba out of nowhere!".

As (apparently) incorrect as the above scenario is*, the interesting thing IMO will be how they try to address what happened next. After all, even if the above scenario truly had occurred, Italian law dictated that the police should immediately have terminated the interview, appraised Knox of her rights, got her a lawyer, and from then on only the PM could interview her and only in the presence of her lawyer. What they absolutely could/should not have done in the aftermath of her verbal "confession/accusation" was type up her statement and get her to sign it - all without having been informed of her rights or being given access to legal counsel.


* IMO there is very strong evidence to suggest that in fact Knox was coerced - almost certainly unlawfully - into naming Lumumba as the killer. This evidence takes the form of a) the court testimony of the "interpreter" Donnino (which can only support the idea that the police were instructing Knox to "remember" certain events); b) the revealing "eventually (Knox) buckled and told us what we already knew to be correct" words of Perugia Police Chief De Felice to reporters the following day; and c) the consistent account of Knox herself.
...d) the SMS exchange with Lumumba, which the police incorrectly interpreted as Amanda meeting up with Lumumba that night - evidence that it was the police and not Amanda who brought Lumumba into the discussion.
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 23rd May 2018, 08:34 PM   #421
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh they'll almost certainly try once again with "We simply called Knox in for a friendly chat to see if she had further information that could help our investigation, and then she simply blurted out the accusation against Lumumba out of nowhere!".

As (apparently) incorrect as the above scenario is*, the interesting thing IMO will be how they try to address what happened next. After all, even if the above scenario truly had occurred, Italian law dictated that the police should immediately have terminated the interview, appraised Knox of her rights, got her a lawyer, and from then on only the PM could interview her and only in the presence of her lawyer. What they absolutely could/should not have done in the aftermath of her verbal "confession/accusation" was type up her statement and get her to sign it - all without having been informed of her rights or being given access to legal counsel.


* IMO there is very strong evidence to suggest that in fact Knox was coerced - almost certainly unlawfully - into naming Lumumba as the killer. This evidence takes the form of a) the court testimony of the "interpreter" Donnino (which can only support the idea that the police were instructing Knox to "remember" certain events); b) the revealing "eventually (Knox) buckled and told us what we already knew to be correct" words of Perugia Police Chief De Felice to reporters the following day; and c) the consistent account of Knox herself.
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
...d) the SMS exchange with Lumumba, which the police incorrectly interpreted as Amanda meeting up with Lumumba that night - evidence that it was the police and not Amanda who brought Lumumba into the discussion.
Also the Gemelli CSC panel judgment, the Hellmann appeal court judgment, and the Boninsegna first-instance judgment, all of which stated - or, in the case of Hellmann, implied - that Knox's defense rights had been violated.

One task for the Italian government, if it wishes to defend itself in the case, is to provide a rational, reasonable, and honest explanation, based on evidence, and not in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights or ECHR case-law, of why Knox's statements from the interrogation could be used against her for the charge of calunnia while they could not, according to Gemelli, be used against her otherwise.

Last edited by Numbers; 23rd May 2018 at 08:37 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 23rd May 2018, 08:49 PM   #422
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,297
In terms of ECHR procedures: the ECHR only announces matters such as decisions of admissibility or inadmissibility when it actually publishes such information. The Registry will not provide any non-published information on such matters.

Furthermore, the admissibility or inadmissibility for each claim in an application which reaches the stage of Communication to the respondent state (Italy, for Knox v. Italy) may be published with the merits in the judgment. If a Communicated case is found to be inadmissible for each of its claims, typically a decision on the case is published in HUDOC.

For the Communicated case Knox v. Italy, neither a judgment nor a decision has yet been published, so the case remains pending. There are thousands of such pending cases before the ECHR. The ECHR states that 55,600 applications were pending as of 30 April 2018.

Knox v. Italy remains a "Noteworthy pending case" summarized in the Country Profile for Italy (see p. 13). That summary reads:

"Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13)
Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2018, 09:06 PM   #423
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,297
Since "pending" means "awaiting its turn" and does not mean "dead in the water" or "failed", one must wonder to what audience the guilters are directing their misrepresentations of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

Perhaps this misrepresentation by the guilters is some kind of tribal, in-group rallying cry - cheerleading intended to boost the spirits of the guilters, whose arguments have been shown to be entirely invalid and thus defeated, and who can only expect future defeats of their invalid and preposterous arguments.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 07:20 AM   #424
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,400
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
NEWSFLASH: Application still dead in the water

E-mail from the European Court regarding Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your message and please find here the information we can provide in response.
1. Both parties’ observations have been received by the Court’s Registry.
2. No decision as to the admissibility of the application has been taken yet.
We hope this helps.
With best wishes,
ECHR – Press Unit

Source: Ergon
Fresh from the "exactly similar" debacle....

Fresh from the news reports from Rocco Sollecito's Italian funeral mass which never happened....

Vixen just keeps on with her guilt-PR campaign with more nonsense.

When caught in a lie, the first rule of the guilt PR-campaign is to simply move on to the next one with no comment about the "still fresh" whoppers.

** Apologies for the split infinitive. I'm a Star Trek fan.
__________________
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 24th May 2018, 07:41 AM   #425
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,009
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Fresh from the "exactly similar" debacle....

Fresh from the news reports from Rocco Sollecito's Italian funeral mass which never happened....

Vixen just keeps on with her guilt-PR campaign with more nonsense.

When caught in a lie, the first rule of the guilt PR-campaign is to simply move on to the next one with no comment about the "still fresh" whoppers.

** Apologies for the split infinitive. I'm a Star Trek fan.
This came from Ergon, who is behind the bogus 'collage' of photos intended to mislead people into thinking there had been a mass for Rocco Sollecito and with Francesco attending. Ergon and his minions are desperate. They have been wrong at every turn. The only thing they have left is to hope the ECHR doesn't rule in Amanda's favor and you can be sure as long as it's still pending they will try to spin things in a desperate effort to rally the troops.

I wouldn't be too hard on Vixen... none of this 'stuff' is hers. She's just waving the pom pom's and being a good little cheerleader. Ergon and Quennell continue to be the architects behind the guilt-PR campaign.
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 24th May 2018, 09:22 AM   #426
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This came from Ergon, who is behind the bogus 'collage' of photos intended to mislead people into thinking there had been a mass for Rocco Sollecito and with Francesco attending. Ergon and his minions are desperate. They have been wrong at every turn. The only thing they have left is to hope the ECHR doesn't rule in Amanda's favor and you can be sure as long as it's still pending they will try to spin things in a desperate effort to rally the troops.

I wouldn't be too hard on Vixen... none of this 'stuff' is hers. She's just waving the pom pom's and being a good little cheerleader. Ergon and Quennell continue to be the architects behind the guilt-PR campaign.
The problem with some PGP is that they believe everything that Quennell, Ergon and the rest of the "Main Contributors" on TJMK claim. They do little, if any, research of their own to verify those claims. They just regurgitate whatever they read on TJMK. It would take a little effort on their part but they could just as easily have found what we did:

1. No evidence of RS ever owning or wearing a Napapijri jacket or red stripe
cap has ever been produced.
2. RS is right-,not left-, handed.
3. AK returned to the US on a regularly scheduled flight, not chartered.
4. No evidence of FS or RS being mafia related was ever produced.
5. No evidence of FS or RS being closely related to Rocco Sollecito was ever produced.
6. No memorial for Rocco S. was actually held.
7. Francesco S never attended the non-existent memorial.
8. The photo alleged to prove he was there was taken years before in Perugia.
9. No evidence of RS "hanging out with mafioso" in the Dominican Republic was ever produced.
10. No evidence of Jovana Popovic's testimony being false was ever produced.
11. No evidence that Jovana's mother was a friend of, or even acquainted with, Vanessa Sollecito was ever produced.
12.No evidence that Vanessa Sollecito was fired from the Carabinieri for "tampering with the evidence" was ever produced.
13. No evidence that "Papa Sollecito... (falsely) provided his boy with an alibi" was ever produced.

I could add more examples but why bother? The TJMK crowd will continue to make false claims and their (few remaining) fans will continue to swallow them hook, line, and sinker.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 24th May 2018 at 10:35 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 24th May 2018, 09:26 AM   #427
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,597
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Fresh from the "exactly similar" debacle....

Fresh from the news reports from Rocco Sollecito's Italian funeral mass which never happened....

Vixen just keeps on with her guilt-PR campaign with more nonsense.

When caught in a lie, the first rule of the guilt PR-campaign is to simply move on to the next one with no comment about the "still fresh" whoppers.
** Apologies for the split infinitive. I'm a Star Trek fan.
When asked to provide evidence for a claim, the second rule of the guilt PR-campaign is to claim it's not their job, that the person requesting the evidence is just too lazy to look it up themselves, that "it's common knowledge", or that they just "shan't".

Last edited by Stacyhs; 24th May 2018 at 09:39 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 24th May 2018, 04:54 PM   #428
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 916
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
** Apologies for the split infinitive. I'm a Star Trek fan.
No need to apologize. The no split infinitive rule is an utterly stupid "rule" whose idiocy is bottomless. The braindead subhuman cretins who devised the rule ages and ages ago should be treated with complete and utter contempt. The rule is in other words total bull-*. It should be buried in the past along with other atrocities.
Pacal 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 12:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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