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 , sexism issues

Closed Thread
Old 19th April 2017, 02:16 PM   #361
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,020
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I don't disagree, but at some point individuals who had a responsibility to be truthful and honest were not and there needs to be an understanding as to why that was. Just as when a court convicts someone for murder the quest for justice is completed but it often leaves many questions unanswered. Only by getting direct statements from the convicted can you begin to understand the motive behind the crime. So yeah, somewhere within the Italian legal system someone should have been observing the investigation and trials and taken Mignini to task on his modified version of the message, but I still want to hear from Mignini himself as well as Stefanoni. How they respond could be very telling to the overall investigation and it's motivations. Besides which, the Italian legal system has repeatedly shown a propensity to protect it's own. I have little hope either Mignini or Stefanoni will ever come under review for their performance in this case but direct questioning would force them to explain themselves.
If either were accused of a crime, he or she could simply refuse to answer. Unlike Amanda or Raffaele at the time of the interrogation, Mignini and Stefanoni understand that an accused person has the right to silence. And if they were to speak on the issue as an accused, they would not be obligated under penalty of perjury to tell the truth, as I understand Italian law.

Your hope to learn why things were done as they were from Mignini and/or Stefanoni is admirable, but may not be practical. And, as you may know, Mignini had been accused of abuse of power for his actions in the Monster of Florence case, but the trial ended with a dismissal - the equivalent of an acquittal under law - when the appeal trial in Florence ran past the statute of limitations. (That tends to be a pattern in Italy when persons in authority are accused of a crime.)

Last edited by Numbers; 19th April 2017 at 02:47 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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 03:14 PM   #362
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,020
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I think most of us with obvious exception believe the ECHR will rule against Italy and in favor of Amanda. I'm wondering what practical effect that will have on Amanda.

Obviously, She won't have to pay Patrick any money but is that it? Given that Italy refused to pay Patrick I'm guessing they won't have any money for Amanda either. The PGP will no longer be able to claim that Amanda was convicted of anything. But this seems so unsatisfying. Any thoughts?
1. If and when the ECHR rules that Amanda did not receive a fair trial in her conviction for calunnia, she will be entitled, under Italian law (Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011) to request a revision trial.

2. If Italy follows its solemn treaty obligations under the Council of Europe treaties, it must obey the final judgments of the ECHR. Italy has, as far as I know, generally done so. So Italy will grant Amanda a revision trial on the calunnia charge.

3. There will be no evidence to present on the calunnia charge, because all of Amanda's statements from the interrogation and her memoriales will not be usable against her for the calunnia charge or any charge.

4. Thus, Amanda will be acquitted of the calunnia charge, or the case will be dismissed by the revision court as unfounded, which is the equivalent under law to an acquittal.

5. The dismissal/acquittal on the calunnia charge will enable Amanda to seek compensation for the three years of the calunnia sentence under the miscarriage of justice law and under civil law.

6. The PGP will claim that the events 1 through 5 above were the result of a conspiracy by the Masons, the Mafia, the US Government, and outer space aliens.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 04:07 PM   #363
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,511
Ladies and gentlemen, we return once again to the bath mat with the bloody footprint and blood in/on the sink. We've established, per police testimony and call transcripts, that Knox and Sollecito did know of them before calling 112 and the arrival of the postal police.

1) If the bloody footprint were Guede's, and Knox was "covering" for him, she would have either washed or disposed of it. She did neither despite plenty of time.

2) If the bloody footprint were Sollecito's, then either she or Sollecito himself would have washed or disposed of it. They did neither.

3) If Knox had washed her hands of Kercher's blood and had been bleeding herself during the crime thus mixing the two, she would have cleaned up the sink to remove the evidence. She did not. Instead, she points it out to the police.

Logic tells us that Knox and Sollecito would have cleaned the bathroom thinking to remove all evidence of themselves. Logic tells us that no staging of a break in was necessary as an open door with a known faulty lock would have been an apparent point of entry for the killer. Amanda could simply have claimed she forgot to lock the door on her way out the previous afternoon. Logic tells us that, if claiming there's been a burglary, then the two would have removed something of value like Filomena's laptop or camera. If guilty, all Knox and Sollecito had to do was leave the door open and go home after cleaning the bathroom during the middle of the night. They would have gone to Gubbio like planned the next morning leaving Filomena or Laura to come home, find the front door open, and start making the calls to the other roommates.

But of course, all the above is not logical to the PGP. Instead, they find it far more believable that Knox and Sollecito would leave such damning evidence of their crime and point it out to the police, fake an unneeded burglary (in the style of Guede) and not get their alibi story straight before initiating the discovery sequence.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th April 2017 at 04:11 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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 04:13 PM   #364
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,511
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It surely has to come to a head, with Raff appealing the Florence court and taking out a writ against nine judiciary officials and possibly the prosecutors if allowed after the prehearing in respect of this.

Bruno is head of Fifth Chambers so if Bongiorno steers the appeal there, all sorts of politics could play out.

Investigations in Italy are by nature secret it can take years for an official to be done for abuse of office (cf Vecchiotti).
Hope springs eternal. I have to acknowledge the "never give up" (aka never face reality) attitude.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:05 PM   #365
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. If and when the ECHR rules that Amanda did not receive a fair trial in her conviction for calunnia, she will be entitled, under Italian law (Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011) to request a revision trial.

2. If Italy follows its solemn treaty obligations under the Council of Europe treaties, it must obey the final judgments of the ECHR. Italy has, as far as I know, generally done so. So Italy will grant Amanda a revision trial on the calunnia charge.

3. There will be no evidence to present on the calunnia charge, because all of Amanda's statements from the interrogation and her memoriales will not be usable against her for the calunnia charge or any charge.

4. Thus, Amanda will be acquitted of the calunnia charge, or the case will be dismissed by the revision court as unfounded, which is the equivalent under law to an acquittal.

5. The dismissal/acquittal on the calunnia charge will enable Amanda to seek compensation for the three years of the calunnia sentence under the miscarriage of justice law and under civil law.

6. The PGP will claim that the events 1 through 5 above were the result of a conspiracy by the Masons, the Mafia, the US Government, and outer space aliens.
Thank you Numbers. I sort of understood all this. But given that Italy basically told Raffaele they weren't going to compensate him is there any reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same thing in regards to any claims by Amanda?
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:47 PM   #366
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thank you Numbers. I sort of understood all this. But given that Italy basically told Raffaele they weren't going to compensate him is there any reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same thing in regards to any claims by Amanda?
Well, she did tell the police they ate at 22:00 when they really ate at 21:00 and she did leave a copy of Harry Potter at both Raffaele's and the cottage, throwing the investigation into utter chaos, so yeah - there are clear signs of deliberately obfuscating the investigation and therefore she doesn't deserve compensation for four years of prison and millions of dollars in legal fees.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 08:34 PM   #367
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Well, she did tell the police they ate at 22:00 when they really ate at 21:00 and she did leave a copy of Harry Potter at both Raffaele's and the cottage, throwing the investigation into utter chaos, so yeah - there are clear signs of deliberately obfuscating the investigation and therefore she doesn't deserve compensation for four years of prison and millions of dollars in legal fees.
Governments screw people all over the world. I've seen them in the US do similar things to people wrongfully convicted. There are a lot of very powerful people in Italy with egg on their faces over this case. This is why I'm highly skeptical of the Italian courts being willing to admit that they did wrong and paying compensation.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 08:47 PM   #368
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,020
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thank you Numbers. I sort of understood all this. But given that Italy basically told Raffaele they weren't going to compensate him is there any reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same thing in regards to any claims by Amanda?
1. Raffaele's claim for compensation was indeed rejected by an Italian court. He has appealed to the CSC; they may also reject or they may award compensation. That decision will be considered final, meaning there will be no appeal available under Italian law.

If the CSC rejects compensation, or if Raffaele considers the compensation inadequate, Raffaele may lodge a complaint with the ECHR that the final decision was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The complaint may be made under one or both of these provisions:

Article 5.5
Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article [5] shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Article 6.1
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ....

If an arrest and detention was based on deceptions or dishonesty by the police and prosecution, there is a violation of Article 5, so Article 5.5 can be invoked. Since Raffaele's arrest was based in large part upon Amanda's arrest, which was based on her coerced statement under interrogation, the outcome of Amanda's ECHR case against Italy for allegedly unfairly convicting her of calunnia may be important to Raffaele's arguments to obtain compensation.

If a final hearing to determine compensation for unjust detention is unfair - for example, employs arbitrary reasoning to deny compensation - then there is a violation of Article 6.1.

If the ECHR judges that there has been a violation of the Convention, it rules that the applicant can seek a rehearing and may award damages ("just satisfaction") to the applicant. Executing the ruling is the responsibility of the government of the state (not simply its judiciary), and is overseen by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Failure of the state to execute the ruling is itself a violation of Convention and may lead to another ECHR case and the award of additional just satisfaction to the applicant.

Article 46.1
The High Contracting Parties {each State of the CoE} undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2. Amanda's legal position for compensation would be somewhat similar to Raffaele's as described above, if and when the ECHR ruled against Italy in her case.

One difference is that, following a projected revision trial and acquittal (or dismissal) Amanda's legal position would include the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention:

Article 3, Protocol No. 7
When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed, or he has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to the law or the practice of the State concerned, unless it is proved that the nondisclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.

The "newly discovered fact" would most likely be that the Italian courts, beginning with the Gemelli CSC panel, did not follow the Convention in their interpretation of Italian law, allowing Amanda's statements made in her questioning as a de facto suspect without a lawyer to be used against her. BTW, under Italian law, questions about the meaning of laws are questions of fact, according to the CPP.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:05 AM   #369
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
.
.
.
It would be beneficial if the Italian parliament passed one or more laws that entered the Code of Criminal Procedure providing that the opinion of the judge must be firmly tied to the evidence, that forensic testing procedures must conform to international standards, and that the defense is to be given, on penalty of nullity of the case for non-compliance, true copies of all the original raw data of forensic testing and all other documentary evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory.


Isn't this just common sense?
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:26 AM   #370
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,020
Originally Posted by sept79 View Post
Isn't this just common sense?
Could be.

Italy's legal system is a "civil law" system. Police, prosecutors, and courts (magistrates and judges) are obligated to follow written procedural laws passed by the Italian Parliament and decisions of the Constitutional Court (which is not the Supreme Court of Cassation, CSC); there is no system of precedents, although CSC judgments may be used as guidance. If there isn't a written procedural law, the police, prosecution, and courts will do anything they please, usually to the disadvantage of the defendant's rights; this prejudicial behavior is apparently a carry-over from Italy's former inquisitorial system.

There is no Italian law that states anything about "common sense" needing to be followed by any authority in the judicial system. Court judgments can be reversed on appeal if they are "manifestly illogical". This provision supposes that the appeal court has a firm grip on the facts, the law, and logic.

This isn't always true in Italy: the classic example in the Knox - Sollecito case is the Chieffi CSC panel, which arbitrarily reversed the Hellmann court acquittal of Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher on the grounds that the Hellmann court reasoning was "manifestly illogical". Examination of the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report shows that it had expectations of fact and law contrary to those physically possible (for the facts) and contrary to Italian law (for the facts and the laws). For example, the Chieffi CSC panel MR demanded that the source of contamination be identified by the defense. This is contrary to the presumption of innocence, which is part of Italian law. It is the prosecution that must establish that its results are not the product of contamination.

Sometimes the police, prosecution, and courts (magistrates and judges) in Italy don't follow the written procedural laws even though they are obligated to do so.

Last edited by Numbers; 20th April 2017 at 06:29 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 07:21 AM   #371
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Governments screw people all over the world. I've seen them in the US do similar things to people wrongfully convicted. There are a lot of very powerful people in Italy with egg on their faces over this case. This is why I'm highly skeptical of the Italian courts being willing to admit that they did wrong and paying compensation.
Agreed. Italy is hardly alone in screwing people over although, based solely on this case, I get the sense that the investigators, prosecutors and judges all protect one another more in Italy. For example, in the Duke Lacrosse case, DA Nifong was NOT protected by the investigators or the courts. His conduct led to his being disbarred and jailed. I doubt a similar situation in Italy would have resulted in the same penalties for the offending prosecutor. I would love to be proven wrong but I don't see it.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:10 AM   #372
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,754
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Agreed. Italy is hardly alone in screwing people over although, based solely on this case, I get the sense that the investigators, prosecutors and judges all protect one another more in Italy. For example, in the Duke Lacrosse case, DA Nifong was NOT protected by the investigators or the courts. His conduct led to his being disbarred and jailed. I doubt a similar situation in Italy would have resulted in the same penalties for the offending prosecutor. I would love to be proven wrong but I don't see it.
It's not always a screw over. As one Canadian study found, it's sometimes simply one level assuming that the people who've passed them the file have done their jobs, with a heavy dose of "benefit of doubt". Even if someone spots an error or even malfeasance, sometimes they pass it on not wanting to be the one causing an internal stink, assuming someone up the line will catch the same thing and correct it.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:19 AM   #373
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Agreed. Italy is hardly alone in screwing people over although, based solely on this case, I get the sense that the investigators, prosecutors and judges all protect one another more in Italy. For example, in the Duke Lacrosse case, DA Nifong was NOT protected by the investigators or the courts. His conduct led to his being disbarred and jailed. I doubt a similar situation in Italy would have resulted in the same penalties for the offending prosecutor. I would love to be proven wrong but I don't see it.
Maybe but I can think of some judges, prosecutors even governors in the US who hide behind sovereign immunity etc. I've seen falsely convicted people in prison being confronted with the choice of having to remain in prison or be released and give up their right to proper compensation.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:36 AM   #374
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,754
Just as it's an issue with the wrongfully prosecuted themselves, this business that the obviousness of their innocence will be a shield.....

..... There's also an uncanny valley for people in "the process" from investigators, interrogators, prosecutors, judges, and appeal judges - plus all the support staff along the way at each level - that if innocence is obvious; well, why then did the "guy below me" not see it, and therefore they pass it along as if it had merit?

Actual innocence should be the get-out-of-jail-free card, but in an uncanny way it's actually the reverse; or can be. Unless someone in the system has the guts to buck the tide.

It seems in Italy, there's an obvious cost to bucking the tide, as Hellmann discovered. In a de facto judicial party-system within the judiciary there, why is anyone surprised? How many times will an Italian judge render a decision not based on the facts, but based on calming the waves?

BTW - this is also something a PGP would claim, too!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 20th April 2017 at 08:38 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:06 AM   #375
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, we return once again to the bath mat with the bloody footprint and blood in/on the sink. We've established, per police testimony and call transcripts, that Knox and Sollecito did know of them before calling 112 and the arrival of the postal police.

1) If the bloody footprint were Guede's, and Knox was "covering" for him, she would have either washed or disposed of it. She did neither despite plenty of time.

2) If the bloody footprint were Sollecito's, then either she or Sollecito himself would have washed or disposed of it. They did neither.

3) If Knox had washed her hands of Kercher's blood and had been bleeding herself during the crime thus mixing the two, she would have cleaned up the sink to remove the evidence. She did not. Instead, she points it out to the police.

Logic tells us that Knox and Sollecito would have cleaned the bathroom thinking to remove all evidence of themselves. Logic tells us that no staging of a break in was necessary as an open door with a known faulty lock would have been an apparent point of entry for the killer. Amanda could simply have claimed she forgot to lock the door on her way out the previous afternoon. Logic tells us that, if claiming there's been a burglary, then the two would have removed something of value like Filomena's laptop or camera. If guilty, all Knox and Sollecito had to do was leave the door open and go home after cleaning the bathroom during the middle of the night. They would have gone to Gubbio like planned the next morning leaving Filomena or Laura to come home, find the front door open, and start making the calls to the other roommates.

But of course, all the above is not logical to the PGP. Instead, they find it far more believable that Knox and Sollecito would leave such damning evidence of their crime and point it out to the police, fake an unneeded burglary (in the style of Guede) and not get their alibi story straight before initiating the discovery sequence.
They did a good job of cleaning up as on entering the apartment there was no sign of any blood or struggle. No footsteps leading to the one on the mat. Rudy's so feint, not immediately apparent.

Yes, Raff mentioned the blood in the bathroom, but as Nencini assessed the calls were made AFTER the postal police arrived then likely, they didn't have time to clean up completely.

Raff mentioning it then is just playing innocent, to preclude their wondering how come he didn't mention it, because of course, he knew a body was imminently to be discovered. As he brags in his book, he is good at thinking on his feet, when he was caught with drug possession with a couple of friends, they quickly conspired together to fox the police.

Why didn't Knox mention blood everywhere and a mess in her phone calls to Romanelli or her mother?


Isn't it ODD there is no visible blood in the hall or on Mez' door.

Rudy had zero motive to clean up the hallway.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 20th April 2017 at 10:18 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:09 AM   #376
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. If and when the ECHR rules that Amanda did not receive a fair trial in her conviction for calunnia, she will be entitled, under Italian law (Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011) to request a revision trial.

2. If Italy follows its solemn treaty obligations under the Council of Europe treaties, it must obey the final judgments of the ECHR. Italy has, as far as I know, generally done so. So Italy will grant Amanda a revision trial on the calunnia charge.

3. There will be no evidence to present on the calunnia charge, because all of Amanda's statements from the interrogation and her memoriales will not be usable against her for the calunnia charge or any charge.

4. Thus, Amanda will be acquitted of the calunnia charge, or the case will be dismissed by the revision court as unfounded, which is the equivalent under law to an acquittal.

5. The dismissal/acquittal on the calunnia charge will enable Amanda to seek compensation for the three years of the calunnia sentence under the miscarriage of justice law and under civil law.

6. The PGP will claim that the events 1 through 5 above were the result of a conspiracy by the Masons, the Mafia, the US Government, and outer space aliens.
You are rather predicating your hopes on your unfettered and boundless optimism that Amanda is actually innocent. You don't believe that Numbers, in your heart.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 20th April 2017 at 10:21 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:13 AM   #377
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. Raffaele's claim for compensation was indeed rejected by an Italian court. He has appealed to the CSC; they may also reject or they may award compensation. That decision will be considered final, meaning there will be no appeal available under Italian law.

If the CSC rejects compensation, or if Raffaele considers the compensation inadequate, Raffaele may lodge a complaint with the ECHR that the final decision was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The complaint may be made under one or both of these provisions:

Article 5.5
Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article [5] shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Article 6.1
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ....

If an arrest and detention was based on deceptions or dishonesty by the police and prosecution, there is a violation of Article 5, so Article 5.5 can be invoked. Since Raffaele's arrest was based in large part upon Amanda's arrest, which was based on her coerced statement under interrogation, the outcome of Amanda's ECHR case against Italy for allegedly unfairly convicting her of calunnia may be important to Raffaele's arguments to obtain compensation.

If a final hearing to determine compensation for unjust detention is unfair - for example, employs arbitrary reasoning to deny compensation - then there is a violation of Article 6.1.

If the ECHR judges that there has been a violation of the Convention, it rules that the applicant can seek a rehearing and may award damages ("just satisfaction") to the applicant. Executing the ruling is the responsibility of the government of the state (not simply its judiciary), and is overseen by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Failure of the state to execute the ruling is itself a violation of Convention and may lead to another ECHR case and the award of additional just satisfaction to the applicant.

Article 46.1
The High Contracting Parties {each State of the CoE} undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2. Amanda's legal position for compensation would be somewhat similar to Raffaele's as described above, if and when the ECHR ruled against Italy in her case.

One difference is that, following a projected revision trial and acquittal (or dismissal) Amanda's legal position would include the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention:

Article 3, Protocol No. 7
When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed, or he has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to the law or the practice of the State concerned, unless it is proved that the nondisclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.

The "newly discovered fact" would most likely be that the Italian courts, beginning with the Gemelli CSC panel, did not follow the Convention in their interpretation of Italian law, allowing Amanda's statements made in her questioning as a de facto suspect without a lawyer to be used against her. BTW, under Italian law, questions about the meaning of laws are questions of fact, according to the CPP.

If. If, if, if. If my aunt...

Oh, never mind.

Would, could, should. Oh look, a chicken dancing a tango. It could enter Britain's Got Talent, if only...
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:16 AM   #378
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's not always a screw over. As one Canadian study found, it's sometimes simply one level assuming that the people who've passed them the file have done their jobs, with a heavy dose of "benefit of doubt". Even if someone spots an error or even malfeasance, sometimes they pass it on not wanting to be the one causing an internal stink, assuming someone up the line will catch the same thing and correct it.
What a quaint Americanism (Canuckism?). This is why a trial works so well. It optimises the chances of a correct verdict.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 20th April 2017 at 10:23 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:32 AM   #379
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are rather predicating your hopes on your unfettered and boundless optimism that Amanda is actually innocent. You don't believe that Numbers, in your heart.
That's not optimism, that is simple intellect and knowledge.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:33 AM   #380
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,754
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are rather predicating your hopes on your unfettered and boundless optimism that Amanda is actually innocent. You don't believe that Numbers, in your heart.
It's a complete mystery, this PGP-meme, that supporters of innocence don't actually believe that.

For what it's worth, I actually do accept that you believe in your heart of hearts the things you say. It is my opinion that there's no basis for those beliefs, but that's another matter.

I think the weirdest incarnation of this strange meme is the one from early on, when upon her release and return to Seattle, PGP went on about how the family had kept Knox locked in her room upstairs because they, in their heart of hearts, knew her to be guilty.

It did not seem to matter that none of that was true.... it doesn't stop the ad hominems spewed because of a belief....
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:35 AM   #381
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What a quaint Americanism (Canuckism?). This is why a trial works so well. It optimises the chances of a correct verdict.
But trials so often don't work well. Just ask Debra Milke and Russ Faria.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:46 AM   #382
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's a complete mystery, this PGP-meme, that supporters of innocence don't actually believe that.

For what it's worth, I actually do accept that you believe in your heart of hearts the things you say. It is my opinion that there's no basis for those beliefs, but that's another matter.

I think the weirdest incarnation of this strange meme is the one from early on, when upon her release and return to Seattle, PGP went on about how the family had kept Knox locked in her room upstairs because they, in their heart of hearts, knew her to be guilty.

It did not seem to matter that none of that was true.... it doesn't stop the ad hominems spewed because of a belief....
I certainly believe Amanda is innocent. I would say that the possibility that she might be guilty at about 1 in 10,000. There is only 1 piece of prosecution evidence that makes up that tiny percentage and that was the bra. Other then that all the evidence supports innocence or is benign.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:49 AM   #383
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,754
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I certainly believe Amanda is innocent. I would say that the possibility that she might be guilty at about 1 in 10,000. There is only 1 piece of prosecution evidence that makes up that tiny percentage and that was the bra. Other then that all the evidence supports innocence or is benign.
But not in your heart of hearts.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:56 AM   #384
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
But not in your heart of hearts.
You old cynic, you.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:03 AM   #385
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,731
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are rather predicating your hopes on your unfettered and boundless optimism that Amanda is actually innocent. You don't believe that Numbers, in your heart.
This is why the PIP-PGP discussions are mostly pointless, you can't even comprehend the PIP viewpoint, and if you can't see where the other side is framing their position from, it's pointless.

From your point of view you assume we PIP are working desperately to excuse what even we can see is clearly incriminating behavior (the interrogation).

In actuality most of us view the interrogation as actually pretty good evidence of innocence. She cracked and yet had absolutely zero useful information to give, because she knew nothing.

The PGP have to construct this elaborate scenario where she breaks down and cracks, but gives up nothing, while pointlessly incriminating herself by blaming a guy she knows will be working in a bar full of customers, and then falsely documenting abuses she faced that very night before she could know the interrogation was neither recorded nor video taped. It's just a mess. But I am able to put myself into your point of view and see why it looks so simple to you. You have a starting axiom (Amanda is guilty) and just view the interrogation through the most distant superficial lens (white girl blames innocent black man).
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:04 AM   #386
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I certainly believe Amanda is innocent. I would say that the possibility that she might be guilty at about 1 in 10,000. There is only 1 piece of prosecution evidence that makes up that tiny percentage and that was the bra. Other then that all the evidence supports innocence or is benign.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
But not in your heart of hearts.
Of course not in my heart of hearts.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:17 AM   #387
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,754
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You old old cynic, you.
There, fixed it for you.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:53 AM   #388
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
There, fixed it for you.
The real joke is just how poor one's critical thinking skills have to be to at this point to believe in their guilt. I mean, I get thinking they were guilty in early 2008, but to think they are guilty today is a clear demonstration of ignorance or idiocy. I mean either you don't really know the case or you are an example major league stupidity. We're talking Jeff Daniels as Harry Dunne level of intellect.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 20th April 2017 at 12:42 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:04 PM   #389
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,511
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
They did a good job of cleaning up as on entering the apartment there was no sign of any blood or struggle. No footsteps leading to the one on the mat. Rudy's so feint, not immediately apparent.
That is not supported by the evidence, or even logic, at all. The attack took place in MK's bedroom so why would there be any sign of blood or a struggle in the entrance of the apartment? They cleaned the floor of bloody footprints leading to the bathmat but then failed to dispose of or wash the mat? Not exactly a logical or reasonabe thing to do... and we know they knew the mat with the bloody footprint was there. Logic also indicates that, if they are going to wipe away the footsteps from MK's bedroom to the mat, then they would wipe down the entire hallway floor with the mop. Although Guede's shoeprints were faint, they were visible to anyone looking for any evidence to clean up. Just as the police could see them without luminol, so could have Knox and Sollecito.


Quote:
Yes, Raff mentioned the blood in the bathroom, but as Nencini assessed the calls were made AFTER the postal police arrived then likely, they didn't have time to clean up completely.
LOL. Nencini was the ONLY court to find that and the evidence contradicts his reasoning. He states that Knox and Sollecito slipped out to make the calls during the confusion of going on with the all the young people who had arrived:
Quote:
...the crowd of people, all there for different reasons, had created a situation of appreciable confusion that certainly prevented the State Police officers from paying attention to what each young person was doing from time to time.
The critical problem with this is that the phone records of Luca Altieri showed he was still at home at 12:46. It was impossible for him and Marco Zaroli to have arrived before 1:00 as Zaroli had to drive from his house to Luca's and then to the cottage. They arrived almost simultaneously with Filomena Grande. Filomena testified she left the festival at 12:45 and it took about 20 minutes to get home. Zaroli also said he and Altieri arrived about 1:00.That means the "crowd of people" weren't there until at least 1:00. Raff called the carabinieri at 12:51. It was this kind of "reasoning" that got Nencini overturned.

Since all the other courts disagreed with Nencini because the evidence proved the call was made before the postales arrived, your claim that the two just didn't have time to clean it up is unfounded. Additionally, the fact that the postales arrived to find the pair sitting quietly outside is evidence they were not cleaning up.

Quote:
Raff mentioning it then is just playing innocent, to preclude their wondering how come he didn't mention it, because of course, he knew a body was imminently to be discovered. As he brags in his book, he is good at thinking on his feet, when he was caught with drug possession with a couple of friends, they quickly conspired together to fox the police.
Nonsense. But the bonus commentary is amusing.

Quote:
Why didn't Knox mention blood everywhere and a mess in her phone calls to Romanelli or her mother?
In her first call to Romanelli, Amanda did mention there was blood in the bathroom. She didn't mention "the mess" because there wasn't one. In her second call, after discovering the break-in, she told her about that.

Hmmm... for all the criticism regarding Amanda's reaction to the open door and blood in the bathroom, even Paola Grande didn't think something horrible had happened:

Quote:
And I was starting to worry, my friend tried to calm me. Paola even said maybe Meredith just cut herself and went to the bathroom. Maybe she ran out to the pharmacy and left the door open.”
(Romanelli to Mignini early Dec 2007)

In her call to her mother, Amanda did mention the blood in the bathroom per Edda Mellas' court testimony:

Quote:
Then she went to take the shower, and when she came out of the shower she noticed that there was a bit of blood but she thought that perhaps someone was having their period and had not cleaned properly after themselves
(interpreter)

Quote:
Isn't it ODD there is no visible blood in the hall or on Mez' door.

Rudy had zero motive to clean up the hallway.
It's not odd at all that there is really no noticeable blood in the hallway as the attack did not occur there. But there are Guede's faintly visible bloody shoeprints. Why should there have been blood on the outside of Kercher's door if it was closed or even standing open when she was attacked inside her bedroom? It would not have been in the path of any blood.

There was no clean up of the hallway as intact luminol revealed footprints and Guede's shoeprints prove. Guede, or even Knox and Sollecito, having any motive or not is irrelevant as it never occurred.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 20th April 2017 at 01:32 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:11 PM   #390
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,511
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The real joke is just how poor one's critical thinking skills have to be to at this point to believe in their guilt. I mean, I get thinking they were guilty in early 2008, but to think they are guilty today is a clear demonstration of ignorance or idiocy. I mean either you don't really know the case or you are an example major league stupidity. We're talking Jeff Daniels as Harry Dunne level of intellect.
The inability to admit being wrong despite evidence to the contrary is a recognized psychological condition and is known by the surnames of two doctors who studied it. I posted it sometime back and another poster brought it up again a couple weeks later. I can't remember what it's called off the top of my head but perhaps someone else can. It's common in narcissists.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:12 PM   #391
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I certainly believe Amanda is innocent. I would say that the possibility that she might be guilty at about 1 in 10,000. There is only 1 piece of prosecution evidence that makes up that tiny percentage and that was the bra. Other then that all the evidence supports innocence or is benign.
I put the odds much greater than that.. perhaps 1:1,000,000. Nothing about this case suggests their involvement. Forgetting PGP fantasy for a moment, Amanda and Meredith were friends who spent significant time together having fun. There is nothing to suggest any friction between the two. There isn't the slightest hint of motive. Raffaele didn't even know Meredith so why would he ever agree to be involved in hurting her. Neither one has any history of violence or criminal behavior. There isn't a shred of evidence of their involvement. It's not possible to put a timeline together that fits the evidence and involves them. And there is virtually no chance that Amanda and Raffaele, who were spending all of their time together enjoying one another, would EVER hook up with a guy like Guede, who they didn't even know, and commit such a horrendous crime. It's not physically possible the three of them committed such a violent and bloody murder in such a small bedroom and yet two of them leave no evidence. I'd say the ONLY evidence that gave me pause was the drop of Amanda's blood on the faucet. I've never known pierced ears to bleed, though I'm told they can. But that is it.

The PGP are a deluded lot who rely entirely on speculation and fantasy to form their beliefs. It's amazing how one can spin the most innocent of things into an element of guilt when one is already convinced of guilt.

Notice how Vixen skipped right over the 36B vs 36C question yesterday as she was responding to a string of posts. Why? Because it can NOT be answered to the satisfaction of the PGP. So rather than admit this, she'll just avoid it. And if she avoids enough of these insurmountable questions then she can continue to believe the PGP fantasy. The only question I have is why? I have no problem with someone having an opinion, but why would you deliberately continue to bury your head in the sand just so you can hang onto that opinion?
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:23 PM   #392
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The real joke is just how poor one's critical thinking skills have to be to at this point to believe in their guilt. I mean, I get thinking they were guilty in early 2008, but to think they are guilty today is a clear demonstration of ignorance or idiocy. I mean either you don't really know the case or you are an example major league stupidity. We're talking Jeff Daniels as Harry Dunne level of intellect.
AC, I think you underestimate the power of confirmation bias. Consider Vixen... all she ever quotes as a source is TJMK, TMoMK or PMF. All three sites are heavily bias toward guilt. It would seem this is all she knows. And as such, this has become reality for her. It's very difficult some times to get past that.

....but then I come back to 'why then does someone bury their head in the sand rather than come to grips that they have something wrong'. I don't think that's a case of ignorance, but I'm also not sure it's confirmation bias. Perhaps it's just an ego thing and an unwillingness to have to admit they had something wrong. I mean, look how difficult it was to get her to admit she was wrong about photographing Luminol reactions. And that was flippin easy...
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:32 PM   #393
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That is not supported by the evidence, or even logic, at all. The attack took place in MK's bedroom so why would there be any sign of blood or a struggle in the entrance of the apartment? They cleaned the floor of bloody footprints leading to the bathmat but then failed to dispose of or wash the mat? Not exactly a logical or reasonabe thing to do... and we know they knew the mat with the bloody footprint was there. Logic also indicates that, if they are going to wipe away the footsteps from MK's bedroom to the mat, then they would wipe down the entire hallway floor with the mop. Although Guede's shoeprints were feint, they were visible to anyone looking for any evidence to clean up. Just as the police could see them without luminol, so could have Knox and Sollecito.
Consider just this one argument from Vixen; suppose there were bloody footprints in the hallway between Meredith's bedroom and the bathroom and Amanda and Raffaele DID clean them up. How in God's name did they manage to wipe that up and STILL retain the foot impression? Anyone who has ever looked at Luminol results understand when an area has been cleaned what Luminol reveals is a massive blob of swirl marks. It does NOT reveal a footprint because the footprint was destroyed during the cleaning. Now, that's not to say Luminol has never revealed a footprint before, but in those cases the area was not cleaned, it was simply such a faint trace that the blood was not visible without the help of Luminol to light it up. But in the 9+ years since this crime happened the PGP have never been smart enough to figure this out. It displays an alarming lack of critical thought by the PGP.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:40 PM   #394
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,511
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Consider just this one argument from Vixen; suppose there were bloody footprints in the hallway between Meredith's bedroom and the bathroom and Amanda and Raffaele DID clean them up. How in God's name did they manage to wipe that up and STILL retain the foot impression? Anyone who has ever looked at Luminol results understand when an area has been cleaned what Luminol reveals is a massive blob of swirl marks. It does NOT reveal a footprint because the footprint was destroyed during the cleaning. Now, that's not to say Luminol has never revealed a footprint before, but in those cases the area was not cleaned, it was simply such a faint trace that the blood was not visible without the help of Luminol to light it up. But in the 9+ years since this crime happened the PGP have never been smart enough to figure this out. It displays an alarming lack of critical thought by the PGP.
Obvious, isn't it? At least to us.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:41 PM   #395
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
They did a good job of cleaning up as on entering the apartment there was no sign of any blood or struggle. No footsteps leading to the one on the mat. Rudy's so feint, not immediately apparent.

Yes, Raff mentioned the blood in the bathroom, but as Nencini assessed the calls were made AFTER the postal police arrived then likely, they didn't have time to clean up completely.

Raff mentioning it then is just playing innocent, to preclude their wondering how come he didn't mention it, because of course, he knew a body was imminently to be discovered. As he brags in his book, he is good at thinking on his feet, when he was caught with drug possession with a couple of friends, they quickly conspired together to fox the police.

Why didn't Knox mention blood everywhere and a mess in her phone calls to Romanelli or her mother?


Isn't it ODD there is no visible blood in the hall or on Mez' door.

Rudy had zero motive to clean up the hallway.
Typical guilt bias reasoning from you. Of course, it couldn't just be that they found it alarming and thought the police should know. Nopety nope nope... that might suggest they were innocent and we can't have that.

As always with you, it makes no difference what they did or didn't do because you will always find a way to see it as a sign of guilt.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:54 PM   #396
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,621
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
AC, I think you underestimate the power of confirmation bias. Consider Vixen... all she ever quotes as a source is TJMK, TMoMK or PMF. All three sites are heavily bias toward guilt. It would seem this is all she knows. And as such, this has become reality for her. It's very difficult some times to get past that.

....but then I come back to 'why then does someone bury their head in the sand rather than come to grips that they have something wrong'. I don't think that's a case of ignorance, but I'm also not sure it's confirmation bias. Perhaps it's just an ego thing and an unwillingness to have to admit they had something wrong. I mean, look how difficult it was to get her to admit she was wrong about photographing Luminol reactions. And that was flippin easy...
Head in the sand is 'willful ignorance'. Yes it is an ego thing when one won't admit to being wrong. But what it really is, is insecurity. Being afraid that people will look at you as being less. I definitely had this problem when I was a teenager but I don't think it was this bad. I think as you get older you just realize that there are some very smart people who were wrong. LaPlace corrected Newton, Edison was wrong about DC, Tesla criticized Einstein about relativity, Einstein was wrong about quantum physics and so on.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 02:14 PM   #397
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Obvious, isn't it? At least to us.
I sometimes think it's obvious now to the PGP as well but they realized they've dug a hole so deep they wouldn't dare bother trying to climb out for fear of starting a cave-in. This point is supported by science, it's supported by empirical data and it's supported by common sense. Good luck trying to climb out of this hole!
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 02:18 PM   #398
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,020
What perhaps is most strange is that some PGP apparently think that the ECHR will make a ruling about Amanda being "innocent" or not, or that somehow my opinion that the ECHR will rule in her favor is based on my belief that Amanda is innocent.

My opinions are based solely on my reading of the ECHR case law and the evidence (facts) of the case. I am confident that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because I have read and comprehended the significance of the evidence in the case. Likewise, I have read enough ECHR case law to be confident of its (eventually) ruling that Italy violated Amanda's rights under the Convention; the ECHR strictly follows its precedents.

The ECHR is not a court of appeal and does not judge anyone "guilty" or "not guilty". The only "person" on trial - and it is really a kind of civil trial - is the respondent state, in this case, Italy. The ECHR will find either that Amanda's rights under the Convention were violated by Italy, or that they were not, for each of her allegations of a violation. This has nothing to do directly with whether or not she is "innocent" (not guilty) or guilty of calunnia. However, by the ECHR ruling that Italy had violated her rights, Italy will be obligated to give Amanda a revision trial strictly adhering to the Convention. This means that "evidence" consisting of statements obtained from her under coercion in an interrogation without a lawyer, and defensive statements (the memoriales) she wrote in custody but before she had the counsel of a lawyer, will not be admissible as evidence against her. Since these were the only evidence against her for the charge of calunnia, she must be acquitted of the charge of calunnia, or the charge must be dismissed (equivalent to an acquittal).

Last edited by Numbers; 20th April 2017 at 02:20 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 02:21 PM   #399
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,511
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Head in the sand is 'willful ignorance'. Yes it is an ego thing when one won't admit to being wrong. But what it really is, is insecurity. Being afraid that people will look at you as being less. I definitely had this problem when I was a teenager but I don't think it was this bad. I think as you get older you just realize that there are some very smart people who were wrong. LaPlace corrected Newton, Edison was wrong about DC, Tesla criticized Einstein about relativity, Einstein was wrong about quantum physics and so on.
As I told my daughter, no matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter.

I agree that being unwilling, or unable, to admit being wrong is a sign of insecurity. Narcissists have difficulty with this because they cannot admit to themselves, much less anyone else, that they aren't superior to everyone else.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 02:30 PM   #400
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,511
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
What perhaps is most strange is that some PGP apparently think that the ECHR will make a ruling about Amanda being "innocent" or not, or that somehow my opinion that the ECHR will rule in her favor is based on my belief that Amanda is innocent.

My opinions are based solely on my reading of the ECHR case law and the evidence (facts) of the case. I am confident that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because I have read and comprehended the significance of the evidence in the case. Likewise, I have read enough ECHR case law to be confident of its (eventually) ruling that Italy violated Amanda's rights under the Convention; the ECHR strictly follows its precedents.

The ECHR is not a court of appeal and does not judge anyone "guilty" or "not guilty". The only "person" on trial - and it is really a kind of civil trial - is the respondent state, in this case, Italy. The ECHR will find either that Amanda's rights under the Convention were violated by Italy, or that they were not, for each of her allegations of a violation. This has nothing to do directly with whether or not she is "innocent" (not guilty) or guilty of calunnia. However, by the ECHR ruling that Italy had violated her rights, Italy will be obligated to give Amanda a revision trial strictly adhering to the Convention. This means that "evidence" consisting of statements obtained from her under coercion in an interrogation without a lawyer, and defensive statements (the memoriales) she wrote in custody but before she had the counsel of a lawyer, will not be admissible as evidence against her. Since these were the only evidence against her for the charge of calunnia, she must be acquitted of the charge of calunnia, or the charge must be dismissed (equivalent to an acquittal).
That's a very concise explanation.You have presented several cases that give a clear indication of what will likely happen.

I have to say that I am really looking forward to seeing what happens amongst the PGP when the new trial results in another acquittal or dismissal. I suspect more than a few heads will explode.
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 06:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.