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

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


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

Reply
Old 30th January 2017, 05:40 PM   #201
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The forensics team were well aware of protocols and it would have been placed in suitable packaging, such as the rock under the chair was (pictured).

You yourself said cellophane type bags were a poor choice, so you should be glad it was a new cardboard (_?) envelope.

In respect of the "crack" forensics team in this case, under the "direction" of not-a-real-doctor-and-in-any-case-a-lab-technician-who-had-no-place-running-a-crime-scene-investigation-team Stefanoni, this is one of the most hilariously incorrect statements made by a pro-guilt commentator in recent times (and believe me, there's pretty stiff competition....).

On the rest of this post, I recommend some research. Items of evidence which may contain liquid evidence (e.g. blood, other forensically-useful fluids - even if that liquid evidence may be close to dried out), or which contain metal parts that might be corroded by trapped moisture, must be placed in porous paper/card containers. Non-porous plastic bags or containers must NOT be used to contain/store/transport such items.

Furthermore, the paper/card containers (whether boxes, envelopes, sealable bags, etc) must be certified sterile containers which are specifically designed for the containment of forensic items in a police investigation. And the containers must be capable of being effectively closed and sealed, in a manner which would reveal any tampering or opening of the container, and a chain-of-custody police officer must sign and date/time when the item is sealed into the container.

Now...... let's have a little think, shall we, about just how many of these protocols the "crack" team in the Kercher case rode a coach and horses through. Just in respect of the Sollecito kitchen knife, for starters. Before we even move on to the bra clasp (clasp with metal hook stored under liquid in sealed plastic vial), the blood-drenched towels from Kercher's room (stored in a heap until they went mouldy and became wholly useless for any type of forensic examination), the mop from the girls' cottage (wrapped in gift wrap paper that the "crack" team found within the same cottage)..................

It's a source of genuine, no-BS, amazement to me that anyone can say things like this with a straight face.
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 30th January 2017, 05:48 PM   #202
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 531
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
PM Mignini did:
Quote:
Il P.M. ha disposto regime di isolamento e di divieto di colloquio tra gli stessi ed i loro legali.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Although I do not speak Italian, I can see he gives his reasons as 'VOLUNTARY HOMICIDE WITH AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT.

You don't consider that serious?
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You still don't get it, do you?

If. You. Are. Arrested. And. Placed. Into. Custodial. Detention. You. Have. The. Right. To. Consult. A. Lawyer.

Do you understand the above words, in the order in which they are written?

In Italy, the ONLY exception to the above is if there are extraordinary circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that allowing the arrested/detained person access to a lawyer might have either a material adverse effect upon justice, or danger to other people.

It's manifestly clear, both from the wording of this section in the code and from legal commentary on this section of the code (and, for that matter, from sheer common sense married with a threshold intellect.....), that this section of the code was specifically intended for possible use in cases where there were reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested/detained person was part of a far wider criminal conspiracy - which almost exclusively means either terrorism or organised crime - where a sizeable pre-organised conspiracy involving both lawyers and other criminals at large in the community might lead to things such as intimidation of witnesses, further criminal acts, or any sort of danger to the public.

It is, frankly, laughable to suppose that - even if one, for one moment, believed that Mignini had caught the "right" people in relation to the Kercher murder (and, remember, Mignini DID think he'd caught the right people) - this murder came anywhere even remotely close to being the type of crime that one might consider the work of the likes of terrorists or organised crime syndicates.

Which is, precisely, why Mignini did not have the right to invoke that section of the code, and in doing so deny Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba any access to a lawyer for over 48 hours after their arrests (and even then, only literally minutes before the Matteini hearing - leaving no reasonable amount of time to even discuss what was going on before they were brought before the courts). Mignini is a damn disgrace. I sincerely hope he gets his full and just comeuppance - nothing more and nothing less than that.
I guess the two highlights make my point. Thank you LondonJohn, to say it with Meat Loaf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wgp-M6oGpI
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."

Last edited by Methos; 30th January 2017 at 05:53 PM.
Methos 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 30th January 2017, 05:49 PM   #203
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Wow.

This is another version of John Follain's nuttiness. One one page in his book he cites Mignini smelling out Knox as a liar.

Then the very next page (or is it two?) Mignini has to go out and arrest Lumumba **solely** on Knox's say-so.

I think this is what the 2015 ISC meant when it wrote that this whole debacle was marked by "investigative amnesia".

Mignini simply could not remember from moment to moment if Knox was a liar or not!

It's (yet) another classic example of the confirmation bias and tunnel vision which ran rampant in the investigation into this murder (and which is so frequently and egregiously employed to the present day by so many pro-guilt commentators).

In effect, Mignini chose to believe Knox was telling the truth when it fit with his a priori conclusions about "what really happened", and he chose to believe she was a liar if/when what she said contradicted his a priori conclusions.

(In fact, I think that the SC's use of the term "investigative amnesia" could probably be directly re-translated to "confirmation bias" - the investigators "forgot" things which either didn't fit with, or contradicted, their "we figured this all out already!" a priori conclusions, while making sure they remembered the living daylights out of anything which in any way tended to support their a priori conclusions.)
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 30th January 2017, 05:53 PM   #204
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,465
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The forensics team were well aware of protocols and it would have been placed in suitable packaging, such as the rock under the chair was (pictured).

You yourself said cellophane type bags were a poor choice, so you should be glad it was a new cardboard (_?) envelope.
I agree with LondonJohn - this is a laugh-out-loud whopper.

Even the prosecution expert, Professor Novelli, told the Hellmann court that Stefanoni did not follow protocols, albeit in that instance not following protocols with regard to multiple amplifications.

So it may have been true - perhaps they were **aware** of protocols, but there is no evidence they followed any of them, and plenty of evidence they did not, some evidence coming even from prosecution witnesses!!!!
__________________
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 30th January 2017, 06:12 PM   #205
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The forensics team were well aware of protocols and it would have been placed in suitable packaging, such as the rock under the chair was (pictured).

You yourself said cellophane type bags were a poor choice, so you should be glad it was a new cardboard (_?) envelope.
Do you not realize how twisted you have things now? To refresh your memory, this is what YOU posted;

Quote:
- The knife was place in a cellophane bag and then inserted into a desk diary envelope.
- It is reasonable to assume this desk diary envelope has no reasonable prospect of containing any of Mez' DNA.
So you said cellophane bag, but now you're saying whatever was appropriate given the protocols. At the risk of starting another multi-day round of "what I meant.." type discussions we'll leave it there.

But the main points, none of which you are addressing are;

(1) It was not the forensic team that "repackaged" the knife, it was the police and there is no indication they were aware of protocols.

(2) I don't recall ever seeing anything that suggested the knife was repackaged into anything before being placed into the desk calendar BOX (it was not an envelop) which was then taped closed.

(3) Both the box and the tape were sitting on the police officer's desk, a deck that had born witness to other evidence from the case. So no, it is not reasonable to assume that neither the box or the tape managed to become contaminated with Meredith's DNA.

(4) There was NO justification for removing the knife from the original collection bag, and the very act of doing so puts the evidence into question.

You claim to be objective and unbias, so will you agree the knife should never have been removed from the original collection bag by the police in the police station?
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 30th January 2017, 06:36 PM   #206
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,465
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It's (yet) another classic example of the confirmation bias and tunnel vision which ran rampant in the investigation into this murder (and which is so frequently and egregiously employed to the present day by so many pro-guilt commentators).

In effect, Mignini chose to believe Knox was telling the truth when it fit with his a priori conclusions about "what really happened", and he chose to believe she was a liar if/when what she said contradicted his a priori conclusions.

(In fact, I think that the SC's use of the term "investigative amnesia" could probably be directly re-translated to "confirmation bias" - the investigators "forgot" things which either didn't fit with, or contradicted, their "we figured this all out already!" a priori conclusions, while making sure they remembered the living daylights out of anything which in any way tended to support their a priori conclusions.)
Agreed. Yet I'm not sure there's a definition written anywhere as to what "investigative amnesia" means within the rarefied world of Italian jurisprudence. But whatever it means, the ISC in 2015 were not saying something complimentary about the case in front of them.
__________________
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 30th January 2017, 07:11 PM   #207
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Not to stir up old controversies, but here is some information on the concept of "actual innocence":



Thus, "actual innocence" is associated* with the claim that a prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not that one can prove that one is absolutely innocent. It is, of course, in the US, often applied to describe the state of one who was convicted, but a thorough examination of the case, perhaps with new evidence, shows that the conviction did not satisfy the BARD requirement.

*By the people that often use this term in practice. Of course, anyone can use terminology however they wish, hopefully including the meaning if it is not the common one.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence
Proving actual innocence unless there is video evidence is almost always problematic. It is the legal equivalent of a null hypothesis. It borders on impossible and is an unreasonable burden on the defense. This is why a defendant is viewed as innocent unless he is proven guilty. A declaration by a jury of not guilty is not a positive claim. It is simply a rejection of a claim. But since every defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, they are presumed innocent as long as they are not found guilty.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 30th January 2017 at 07:23 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2017, 07:50 PM   #208
Stacyhs
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am the exact opposite. I followed the case from the start. I was amazed that a woman was alleged to be involved and like bagels, when Rudy was pictured arrested in Germany and returning to Italy looking dishevelled, and described as a petty crook, I assumed, now they have caught the real killer.

As I looked further and further into the evidence with a feeling of disbelief, I am afraid it became more and more clear Amanda and Raff were not at all innocent. It was obvious to me that Nathaniel Rich's ROLLING STONE article was a romantic crock of **** (no surprise to discover he got all his facts from Amanda's girlfriend Madison Paxton, who herself wrote reams about the 53 hours of interrogation, so we can see where that lie emanated).Amanda's ridiculous act in court hamming it up about the 'mask of an assassin' underlined my growing suspicion that she was completely bat **** crazy personality-disordered.


I have searched and searched in vain for any indication of the pair's innocence and have had no luck so far.

IMV the pair had a fair even-handed trial and that Massei and Nencini came to the correct 'Guilty' verdict beyond reasonable doubt, based solely on the evidence presented before the court
The myriad of lies from the kids and their supporters are exactly the lies you would expect from a guilty person. They predictably include:

- blame someone else
- no alibi
- claim police brutality
-claim false memory syndrome
- claim the DNA is faked (cf Avery claiming the police used an old vial of his blood to plant his DNA in Theresa Halbach's car)
- claim the police/prosecutors made a mistake but are unable to admit it
- start innocence PR campaigns.
Perhaps if you stopped relying on TJMK, TMofMK, and 2009 circa misinformation, your search for evidence of innocence wouldn't be in vain.

The myriad of lies from you and the prosecution, police and PGP are exactly the lies you would expect from people who cannot accept the truth.

I could counter each and every one of your points but that's all been done numerous times before so it would be a waste of time to do it again. You'd continue to ignore it anyway.

Regardless of just how much the mountains of "evidence" persuaded you of their guilt, the fact is that the Supreme Court disagrees with you to the point that they didn't even bother sending it back for yet another trial. So cry me a river.
Stacyhs 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 30th January 2017, 07:58 PM   #209
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,673
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Proving actual innocence unless there is video evidence is almost always problematic. It is the legal equivalent of a null hypothesis. It borders on impossible and is an unreasonable burden on the defense. This is why a defendant is viewed as innocent unless he is proven guilty. A declaration by a jury of not guilty is not a positive claim. It is simply a rejection of a claim. But since every defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, they are presumed innocent as long as they are not found guilty.
Are you then defining "actual innocence" as meaning being able to prove someone is innocent in an absolute sense, or as defined by the Wikipedia article, as "not guilty BARD" but wrongfully convicted?
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 30th January 2017, 08:32 PM   #210
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Are you then defining "actual innocence" as meaning being able to prove someone is innocent in an absolute sense, or as defined by the Wikipedia article, as "not guilty BARD" but wrongfully convicted?
Yes. I'm discussing that juries don't issue 'innocent' verdicts, but 'not guilty verdicts' because it is not the responsibility of the defense to prove innocence only that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of BARD. But from a jurisprudence perspective it has the same effect and are synonymous.
__________________
“ 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 30th January 2017, 10:01 PM   #211
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,673
No one has yet posted on the challenge I presented in an earlier post, #219 of this Continuation 24: Calunnia is only a crime if one KNOWINGLY falsely accuses someone. The Hellmann court convicted Knox of calunnia, but acquitted her of the murder. So what reasoning did Hellmann use in the MR to show, BARD, that Knox KNEW that she had falsely accused Lumumba? Was that reasoning "reasonable and objective" or was it arbitrary?

This line of argument may be of interest to the ECHR, since arbitrary judicial reasoning on an important point is considered synonymous with an unfair trial, a violation of Convention Article 6. ECHR describes itself as "master of the facts and of the law" in accordance with the Convention, and can find a violation even if it is not claimed by an applicant. So understanding whether or not Hellmann's reasoning was or was not clearly arbitrary can give insights into how the ECHR will view the case of Knox v. Italy.

I anticipate some will argue that the Hellmann court verdict was quashed and that therefore its reasoning for the conviction of Knox for calunnia is therefore not relevant. However, this argument ignores the fact that the Chieffi CSC panel actually confirmed the conviction of Knox for calunnia by the Hellmann court, while criticizing it on some points and referring the issue of the addition of aggravating factors to the calunnia conviction to the Nencini court, especially if the Nencini court should find Knox guilty on the murder/rape charges (Hellmann had, of course, acquitted her on those charges). The aggravating charges would mean that the calunnia was not "simple" but was more heinous because the calunnia was allegedly meant to help cover up Knox's alleged participation in the more serious crime, or was allegedly meant to help her allegedly shield one of the participants.

In order to explore these ideas more fully, here are links to the Hellmann MR:

https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com...ision/calumny/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motiva...eal-documents/
This last link contains a link to the first source, as well as to a PDF of the Hellmann court judgment, the "Hellmann-Zanetti Report" (Italian original, see p. 29-35).

To begin, though, here is the beginning, translated from page 25, relating to the admissibility and inadmissibility of the interrogation statements and Memoriale 1. (Apparently the Italian courts never considered the evidence of Memoriale 2, for reasons unknown to me. One may speculate that to discuss Memoriale 2 would be too damaging to the prosecution case, and therefore it was totally avoided.) Note that the Hellmann confirms that the CSC ruled the interrogation statements and Memoriale 1 not usable (inadmissible) in the murder/rape case, but fully usable (admissible) for the criminal calunnia trial (held before the same judges at the same time as the murder/rape trial). Hellmann confirms that the CSC considered Knox a suspect during the interrogation, who should have had a lawyer, and therefore her interrogation statements are totally unusable in the murder/rape trial; Hellmann expresses uncertainty if Memoriale 1 is usable for the murder/rape trial.

Those posters who have argued that Knox was not a suspect during the interrogation are thus not in agreement with the Supreme Court of Cassation's ruling (by the Gemelli CSC panel) of 2008.

In terms of ECHR case law, the use of statements written by a person in custody without access to a lawyer for consultation to help convict that person is almost certainly a violation of Convention Article 6 (unfair trial) on the basis of Dayanan v. Turkey. The use of statements from an interrogation conducted without a lawyer to convict someone is definitively a violation of Convention Article 6 based on Salduz v. Turkey and Ibrahim and others v. the UK.

Quote:
The “spontaneous” statements made by Amanda Knox on November 6, as well as the note [memoriale] subsequently written by her, have been introduced into the trial record.

This Corte di Assise di Appello, while confirming the procedural ruling [ordinanza] of the first-level Corte di Assise on this point, has nevertheless specified that, while they are usable with respect to the crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, they cannot be usable with respect to the other crimes against Meredith Kercher to the extent that, as the Corte di Cassazione has also confirmed (ruling no. 990/08, dated 4-01-2008), they are subject to absolute nullification in this regard [sono affetti, sotto questo profilo, da nullitΰ assoluta], as having been given in the absence of an attorney by a person who had already assumed the role of a suspect [indagata].

The evidence against the current defendants with regard to the crime of murder aggravated by sexual violence (as well as the other crimes connected to these) cannot, therefore, include these “spontaneous” statements, but only, possibly [in ipotesi], the note written afterward.
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 31st January 2017, 01:57 AM   #212
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You obtusely refuse to understand the difference between expressing an opinion, making a mistake, disagreeing with you or Welshman and lying.

It is playgound logic: "You've accused Amanda and Raff of rape and murder, therefore we're going to accuse YOU of rape and murder, ner, ner, ner,-ner,-ner. Yah boo shucks to you!"

Here in England, it is considered extremely rude and vulgar to call someone a liar within the course of a gentlemanly debate, just because they take a different view from you.
Vixen should get her facts straight. I didn't accuses PGP of lying on the basis that I simply disagreed with them. In my posts I gave examples where PGP have lied and condoned the lies of others which I backed with evidence. It is hypocritical to viciously attack someone for lying and then lie yourself and condone the lies of others. Even Vixen should be able to grasp that. How do PGP explain this gross hypocrisy?
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 03:15 AM   #213
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
I guess the two highlights make my point. Thank you LondonJohn, to say it with Meat Loaf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wgp-M6oGpI
Two out of three ain't bad.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 09:02 AM   #214
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,465
Originally Posted by bagels
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Moderated content redacted.
We should be all loathe to make armchair diagnoses.....

But reading what Mignini himself says in Drew Griffin's CNN interview in 2010 makes him appear completely unempathetic towards Amanda Knox, who at the time of his own entry into the interrogation still thought of her as only the one to have named Lumumba. Empathy would have saved him from (as Follain relates) one moment considering AK a liar, but then the next moment going out to arrest Lumumba solely based on AK's say-so.

But back at his entry into the room, he specifically says that he'd not asked her anything to determine how she was doing, he specifically says he intuited her demeanor by observation. He said he determined she was afraid of Lumumba, and also wanted to continue speaking - not because he asked her, but because he sensed it.

There's a good reason he had to tell Drew Griffin that, because he was about to get a memorale out of her where "I wish to spontaneously declare...." would be the opening sentence. He had to preserve spontaneity, or at least the fiction of it.

Where he comes across as particularly unempathic is that the excuses he uses to defend his behaviour at interrogation are all self-serving. This includes the one thing he actually admits to telling Knox - if she wanted to continue talking he'd act as if only a notary.

In other words, with no lawyer present - one guaranteed by Italy, but conveniently forgotten by Mignini - he entraps her to keep speaking. And of course we can all consult the transcript/video of what was said; rather than be forced to guess on the basis of an obviously coached 2nd memorale.

I mean, who starts a confession with "I wish to spontaneously declare....." unless someone with legal knowledge of what's at stake had coached her that it had to be that way....?

But there's no empathy there from Mignini - granted, who's there to solve a crime in Sherlock Holmesian style. But if he'd had one scintilla of empathy, he could have saved RS and AK 7 years of hell, not to mention save the Kerchers from the roller coaster of the AK/RS prosecutions.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by jsfisher; 1st February 2017 at 06:15 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 09:48 AM   #215
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
We should be all loathe to make armchair diagnoses.....

But reading what Mignini himself says in Drew Griffin's CNN interview in 2010 makes him appear completely unempathetic towards Amanda Knox, who at the time of his own entry into the interrogation still thought of her as only the one to have named Lumumba. Empathy would have saved him from (as Follain relates) one moment considering AK a liar, but then the next moment going out to arrest Lumumba solely based on AK's say-so.

But back at his entry into the room, he specifically says that he'd not asked her anything to determine how she was doing, he specifically says he intuited her demeanor by observation. He said he determined she was afraid of Lumumba, and also wanted to continue speaking - not because he asked her, but because he sensed it.

There's a good reason he had to tell Drew Griffin that, because he was about to get a memorale out of her where "I wish to spontaneously declare...." would be the opening sentence. He had to preserve spontaneity, or at least the fiction of it.

Where he comes across as particularly unempathic is that the excuses he uses to defend his behaviour at interrogation are all self-serving. This includes the one thing he actually admits to telling Knox - if she wanted to continue talking he'd act as if only a notary.

In other words, with no lawyer present - one guaranteed by Italy, but conveniently forgotten by Mignini - he entraps her to keep speaking. And of course we can all consult the transcript/video of what was said; rather than be forced to guess on the basis of an obviously coached 2nd memorale.

I mean, who starts a confession with "I wish to spontaneously declare....." unless someone with legal knowledge of what's at stake had coached her that it had to be that way....?

But there's no empathy there from Mignini - granted, who's there to solve a crime in Sherlock Holmesian style. But if he'd had one scintilla of empathy, he could have saved RS and AK 7 years of hell, not to mention save the Kerchers from the roller coaster of the AK/RS prosecutions.
Or EVERYONE from Amanda and Raffaele to Italy's taxpayers millions of Euros/Lira/Dollars.
__________________
“ 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 31st January 2017, 10:11 AM   #216
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Or EVERYONE from Amanda and Raffaele to Italy's taxpayers millions of Euros/Lira/Dollars.
IIRC, if Guede had been tried as the sole perpetrator and found guilty he could have received a life sentence, which in Italy is 30 years. No reduction of sentence would have been available to him. But in his selfish, overzealous effort to convict Amanda and Raffaele, Mignini gave Guede a paved path to a minimize role and an insanely short sentence. If Meredith had been my daughter I would be more angry over this than anything else.
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 31st January 2017, 10:46 AM   #217
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
IIRC, if Guede had been tried as the sole perpetrator and found guilty he could have received a life sentence, which in Italy is 30 years. No reduction of sentence would have been available to him. But in his selfish, overzealous effort to convict Amanda and Raffaele, Mignini gave Guede a paved path to a minimize role and an insanely short sentence. If Meredith had been my daughter I would be more angry over this than anything else.
The problem of course for the Kerchers is complicated. They were told by all the powers that be that Amanda was behind the murder of their daughter. They believe that to this very day. They were emotionally and financially invested in that narrative. They still are emotionally invested. If they weren't they would apologize to 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 11:25 AM   #218
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,465
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The problem of course for the Kerchers is complicated. They were told by all the powers that be that Amanda was behind the murder of their daughter. They believe that to this very day. They were emotionally and financially invested in that narrative. They still are emotionally invested. If they weren't they would apologize to Amanda.
In 2009 and 2014 those beliefs were vindicated. It's almost as if the courts designed it to maximize their misery.
__________________
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 31st January 2017, 12:52 PM   #219
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
In 2009 and 2014 those beliefs were vindicated. It's almost as if the courts designed it to maximize their misery.
I feel bad for the Kerchers to a degree. But only to a degree. You would hope nothing like this happens to anyone but the idea that three virtual strangers came together to murder their daughter is really absurd especially when you consider the language difficulties. There are holes in every guilt narrative that you can drive a train through.

Such as why would Rudy on the Skype call with Giacomo say he was there at the murder but say Amanda was not? Why are there no links between Rudy and Amanda or Raffaele? Why would Amanda want to kill her roommate of only a month when there is no evidence that they had EVER even quarreled?

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the guilt position that makes sense. OTOH, pretty much EVERYTHING about Rudy acting alone in the commission of a burglary makes sense.

But hey, I'm an atheist. I need logic and evidence to come to a conclusion. Fairy tales and wild rationalizations just don't cut it.
__________________
“ 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 31st January 2017, 01:16 PM   #220
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,465
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I feel bad for the Kerchers to a degree. But only to a degree. You would hope nothing like this happens to anyone but the idea that three virtual strangers came together to murder their daughter is really absurd especially when you consider the language difficulties. There are holes in every guilt narrative that you can drive a train through.
And yet even so, the courts convicted in 2009 and 2014, and (to my way of thinking) inexplicably overturned the 2011 acquittal. Every one of us had had to have struggled with the nuances of Italian law/procedure, and we're outside of that context!

And to add to this, studies I have read (some citing the Knox/Sollecito prosecutions) say that Italy is half-way through a change from the Inquisatorial system, with a dysfunctional legislature unable to finish the job.

Why should the Kerchers' be any different from the many who simply threw up their hands and said, "Well, I sure hope Italy knows what they're doing."

For me I came on board in Aug 2011 thinking they were probably guilty, if only for the fact that (I believed then) courts must have a reason to find people guilty. Besides, DNA is DNA is DNA and kids overseas for the first time do stupid things. In reading what I later discovered were the guilt sites, I just came away as confused as ever because the guilt sites even then had not made a convincing case for guilt - yet there they were in Aug 2011 in prison.

Amongst many things was the Hellmann acquittals, but also listening to Jeffrey Toobin on CNN say matter of factly on Oct 3, 2011, "At the end of the day, you can't convict someone when there's no evidence, not even in Italy."

What? But I'd just read on one of the guilt-sites that guilt was a slam dunk, even with no DNA. The three days later I joined IIP.

But I'm just up in the cheap seats - why would the Kerchers ever have doubted that the 2009 conviction was anything but warranted, esp. with Francesco Maresca as their legal interpreter?
__________________
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 31st January 2017, 01:34 PM   #221
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,465
The following is not the CNN clip I had originally seen, but is of Barbie Latza Nadeau and Jeffrey Toobin on CNN (Oct 3 2011) discussing the reasons for the acquittal back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6otMRKXd_wk

Note how much Barbie behaves herself for CNN - she briefly calls out John King for even the suggestion of "anti-Americanism," but in shooting that down simply confirms that the police erred because they did not know what to make of Knox's behaviour.

Then again, she also confirms the independence of Conti & Vecchiotti, where the difference between the 2009 convicting court and the 2011 acquitting court was that the latter allowed independent checking of the DNA evidence. Turned out, there was nothing linking AK and RS to the murder.

Towards the end of the clip (after discussing the differences in Italy from America) Toobin concludes by saying both systems make mistakes, and he said they probably did in 2009.

ETA - then Eliot Spitzer and Toobin discuss the bizarre, predatory prosecution of Knox's biological parents, which (for me) cemented that Mignini needed to attack everyone in sight to mask his horrible prosecutorial miscalculations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMzgSwxxPM
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 31st January 2017 at 01:37 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 01:43 PM   #222
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I feel bad for the Kerchers to a degree. But only to a degree. You would hope nothing like this happens to anyone but the idea that three virtual strangers came together to murder their daughter is really absurd especially when you consider the language difficulties. There are holes in every guilt narrative that you can drive a train through.

Such as why would Rudy on the Skype call with Giacomo say he was there at the murder but say Amanda was not? Why are there no links between Rudy and Amanda or Raffaele? Why would Amanda want to kill her roommate of only a month when there is no evidence that they had EVER even quarreled?

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the guilt position that makes sense. OTOH, pretty much EVERYTHING about Rudy acting alone in the commission of a burglary makes sense.

But hey, I'm an atheist. I need logic and evidence to come to a conclusion. Fairy tales and wild rationalizations just don't cut it.
It is important to bear in mind the prosecution had six years and three main trials to argue their case. In all this time the prosecution could never find any connection between Amanda and Raffaele with Guede. I recall Vixen saying Amanda and Raffaele were vague about they did on the day of the murder and therefore they must have met Guede for which there is no evidence to support. The fact Vixen had to make up a story of Amanda and Raffaele meeting Guede clearly shows there was a lack of evidence of contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Guede. I suspect that the purpose of HIV scam was the police hoping Amanda would write Guede as one of her sexual partners. The fact the police had to resort to this tactic to try and establish a connection between Amanda and Guede indicates how unsuccessful the police had been in finding a connection.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 02:36 PM   #223
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
We should be all loathe to make armchair diagnoses.....

But reading what Mignini himself says in Drew Griffin's CNN interview in 2010 makes him appear completely unempathetic towards Amanda Knox, who at the time of his own entry into the interrogation still thought of her as only the one to have named Lumumba. Empathy would have saved him from (as Follain relates) one moment considering AK a liar, but then the next moment going out to arrest Lumumba solely based on AK's say-so.

But back at his entry into the room, he specifically says that he'd not asked her anything to determine how she was doing, he specifically says he intuited her demeanor by observation. He said he determined she was afraid of Lumumba, and also wanted to continue speaking - not because he asked her, but because he sensed it.

There's a good reason he had to tell Drew Griffin that, because he was about to get a memorale out of her where "I wish to spontaneously declare...." would be the opening sentence. He had to preserve spontaneity, or at least the fiction of it.

Where he comes across as particularly unempathic is that the excuses he uses to defend his behaviour at interrogation are all self-serving. This includes the one thing he actually admits to telling Knox - if she wanted to continue talking he'd act as if only a notary.

In other words, with no lawyer present - one guaranteed by Italy, but conveniently forgotten by Mignini - he entraps her to keep speaking. And of course we can all consult the transcript/video of what was said; rather than be forced to guess on the basis of an obviously coached 2nd memorale.

I mean, who starts a confession with "I wish to spontaneously declare....." unless someone with legal knowledge of what's at stake had coached her that it had to be that way....?

But there's no empathy there from Mignini - granted, who's there to solve a crime in Sherlock Holmesian style. But if he'd had one scintilla of empathy, he could have saved RS and AK 7 years of hell, not to mention save the Kerchers from the roller coaster of the AK/RS prosecutions.
There has been a gruesome murder, a woman pops up, who happened to be at the scene when the cops arrived, with a mop claiming to have introduced the killer to Mez and witnessing the crime.

A cop will be very interested.

A prosecutor will be interested.

The cops and the prosecutor were simply doing their job.

The cops and Mignini had to witness the murder scene and the sadness of a young life snuffed out by sadists.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:38 PM   #224
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
IIRC, if Guede had been tried as the sole perpetrator and found guilty he could have received a life sentence, which in Italy is 30 years. No reduction of sentence would have been available to him. But in his selfish, overzealous effort to convict Amanda and Raffaele, Mignini gave Guede a paved path to a minimize role and an insanely short sentence. If Meredith had been my daughter I would be more angry over this than anything else.
If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:40 PM   #225
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The problem of course for the Kerchers is complicated. They were told by all the powers that be that Amanda was behind the murder of their daughter. They believe that to this very day. They were emotionally and financially invested in that narrative. They still are emotionally invested. If they weren't they would apologize to Amanda.
IMV attacking the parents of a murder victim is despicable and a low blow.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:42 PM   #226
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I feel bad for the Kerchers to a degree. But only to a degree. You would hope nothing like this happens to anyone but the idea that three virtual strangers came together to murder their daughter is really absurd especially when you consider the language difficulties. There are holes in every guilt narrative that you can drive a train through.

Such as why would Rudy on the Skype call with Giacomo say he was there at the murder but say Amanda was not? Why are there no links between Rudy and Amanda or Raffaele? Why would Amanda want to kill her roommate of only a month when there is no evidence that they had EVER even quarreled?

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the guilt position that makes sense. OTOH, pretty much EVERYTHING about Rudy acting alone in the commission of a burglary makes sense.

But hey, I'm an atheist. I need logic and evidence to come to a conclusion. Fairy tales and wild rationalizations just don't cut it.

Being an atheist is nothing special. I was one for years.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:45 PM   #227
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There has been a gruesome murder, a woman pops up, who happened to be at the scene when the cops arrived, with a mop claiming to have introduced the killer to Mez and witnessing the crime.

A cop will be very interested.

A prosecutor will be interested.

The cops and the prosecutor were simply doing their job.

The cops and Mignini had to witness the murder scene and the sadness of a young life snuffed out by sadists.

Sadist. Singular. Don't you know that by now?
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 31st January 2017, 02:46 PM   #228
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
And yet even so, the courts convicted in 2009 and 2014, and (to my way of thinking) inexplicably overturned the 2011 acquittal. Every one of us had had to have struggled with the nuances of Italian law/procedure, and we're outside of that context!

And to add to this, studies I have read (some citing the Knox/Sollecito prosecutions) say that Italy is half-way through a change from the Inquisatorial system, with a dysfunctional legislature unable to finish the job.

Why should the Kerchers' be any different from the many who simply threw up their hands and said, "Well, I sure hope Italy knows what they're doing."

For me I came on board in Aug 2011 thinking they were probably guilty, if only for the fact that (I believed then) courts must have a reason to find people guilty. Besides, DNA is DNA is DNA and kids overseas for the first time do stupid things. In reading what I later discovered were the guilt sites, I just came away as confused as ever because the guilt sites even then had not made a convincing case for guilt - yet there they were in Aug 2011 in prison.

Amongst many things was the Hellmann acquittals, but also listening to Jeffrey Toobin on CNN say matter of factly on Oct 3, 2011, "At the end of the day, you can't convict someone when there's no evidence, not even in Italy."

What? But I'd just read on one of the guilt-sites that guilt was a slam dunk, even with no DNA. The three days later I joined IIP.

But I'm just up in the cheap seats - why would the Kerchers ever have doubted that the 2009 conviction was anything but warranted, esp. with Francesco Maresca as their legal interpreter?

Anyone who has actually read through the court documents, will know the Kerchers got a raw deal.

For all your railing at Italy, in the US the kids would have got life without parole, or death row, for sure. Maybe an appeal, but only if they confess and show remorse.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:48 PM   #229
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Sadist. Singular. Don't you know that by now?
Your bible, the Marasca report confirms it considers the perpetrators (note plural form) had a serial killer profile, as opposed to a random sole burglar.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:51 PM   #230
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
The following is not the CNN clip I had originally seen, but is of Barbie Latza Nadeau and Jeffrey Toobin on CNN (Oct 3 2011) discussing the reasons for the acquittal back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6otMRKXd_wk

Note how much Barbie behaves herself for CNN - she briefly calls out John King for even the suggestion of "anti-Americanism," but in shooting that down simply confirms that the police erred because they did not know what to make of Knox's behaviour.

Then again, she also confirms the independence of Conti & Vecchiotti, where the difference between the 2009 convicting court and the 2011 acquitting court was that the latter allowed independent checking of the DNA evidence. Turned out, there was nothing linking AK and RS to the murder.

Towards the end of the clip (after discussing the differences in Italy from America) Toobin concludes by saying both systems make mistakes, and he said they probably did in 2009.

ETA - then Eliot Spitzer and Toobin discuss the bizarre, predatory prosecution of Knox's biological parents, which (for me) cemented that Mignini needed to attack everyone in sight to mask his horrible prosecutorial miscalculations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMzgSwxxPM
If shows how deprived the US folk are of genuine news. All they have are a bunch of fakes like Jim Clemente, spouting off, and then getting slapped with a defamation suit by the brother of Jonbenet Ramsey whom he named as 'the real killer' of the little girl. D'oh!
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:52 PM   #231
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
IMV attacking the parents of a murder victim is despicable and a low blow.

Is that a fixed and blanket rule, Vixen?

Just as one small example: do you think John Kercher was fair to have said, just this week, "They've (i.e. Knox and Sollecito) been set free - so why keep going on?", seemingly in response to the news about Sollecito's compensation hearing?

Because from where I sit, that seems like a horribly unfair - even unpleasant - thing for John Kercher to have said. Is your rule, by contrast, that it is NEVER allowable to "attack the parents of a murder victim"?
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 31st January 2017, 02:57 PM   #232
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Is that a fixed and blanket rule, Vixen?

Just as one small example: do you think John Kercher was fair to have said, just this week, "They've (i.e. Knox and Sollecito) been set free - so why keep going on?", seemingly in response to the news about Sollecito's compensation hearing?

Because from where I sit, that seems like a horribly unfair - even unpleasant - thing for John Kercher to have said. Is your rule, by contrast, that it is NEVER allowable to "attack the parents of a murder victim"?
John Kercher is right. This poor man had to watch these two walk free thanks to background machinations that had nothing to do with the actual evidence.

Now they are demanding compo! It's as cheeky as the Lee Rigby killer demanding £20K for the loss of his two front teeth during the scuffle when police arrested him.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 02:57 PM   #233
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Delete
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 31st January 2017 at 03:02 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 02:58 PM   #234
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your bible, the Marasca report confirms it considers the perpetrators (note plural form) had a serial killer profile, as opposed to a random sole burglar.

"My bible"? You really, really ought to learn to stop ascribing these emotive descriptors to others, Vixen. Thank you for your future cooperation in this matter. OK?

Oh, and it would well behoove you to understand exactly why the Marasca SC report mentioned the (mythical) "multiple attackers" part (hint: it has nothing to do with what the Marasca SC panel saw in the evidence, and everything to do with the Marasca SC panel's knowledge that this was a piece of the res judicata from the Guede trial (and see many, many other posts here about just how improperly the Guede courts effectively had no option but to find for multiple attackers, since all parties wanted - needed - that to be the court's finding), and therefore if the Marasca SC panel had contradicted this by stating (correctly) that this was the work of Guede acting alone, this would automatically have triggered a complex constitutional issue and very probably a Guede retrial. You're welcome )
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 31st January 2017, 03:00 PM   #235
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
IMV attacking the parents of a murder victim is despicable and a low blow.
Clearly you don't know what an attack is. It's also a low blow to attack innocent people and make up lies about them.
__________________
“ 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 31st January 2017, 03:02 PM   #236
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
By the way, Vixen, and (again) since you're around, please can you answer the question I've posed you twice already: you made the allegation that "public safety" would have been compromised if Knox/Sollecito/Lumumba had been allowed to consult with their respective lawyers while they were in custody, from the time of their arrests on 6th November 2007 right up to (literally) minutes before the first arraignment hearing on 8th November. Please can you tell us how and why you believe "public safety" would have been compromised?

Thanks in advance for you explaining your allegation.
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 31st January 2017, 03:08 PM   #237
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
John Kercher is right. This poor man had to watch these two walk free thanks to background machinations that had nothing to do with the actual evidence.

Now they are demanding compo! It's as cheeky as the Lee Rigby killer demanding £20K for the loss of his two front teeth during the scuffle when police arrested him.

You know the Lee Rigby killers (plural) were safely convicted in a criminal trial process, don't you? And that they were clearly guilty BARD?

You know that Knox and Sollecito were safely acquitted in a criminal trial process, don't you? And that there was in fact not one bit of credible, reliable evidence of their guilt? And that they almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the Kercher murder?

And if you know all of the above, perhaps we can move on to your "comparison", and see it for what it was? Now who was it mentioning the terms "despicable" and "low blow"? <fx: plays in Alanis Morisette's "Ironic" at full volume>
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 31st January 2017, 03:08 PM   #238
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,917
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If shows how deprived the US folk are of genuine news. All they have are a bunch of fakes like Jim Clemente, spouting off, and then getting slapped with a defamation suit by the brother of Jonbenet Ramsey whom he named as 'the real killer' of the little girl. D'oh!
This from a resident of the tabloid capital of the world. Can you say Daily Mail?
__________________
“ 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 31st January 2017, 03:09 PM   #239
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
By the way, Vixen, and (again) since you're around, please can you answer the question I've posed you twice already: you made the allegation that "public safety" would have been compromised if Knox/Sollecito/Lumumba had been allowed to consult with their respective lawyers while they were in custody, from the time of their arrests on 6th November 2007 right up to (literally) minutes before the first arraignment hearing on 8th November. Please can you tell us how and why you believe "public safety" would have been compromised?

Thanks in advance for you explaining your allegation.
You quoted the relevant section yourself in the Italian Penal Code in respect of emergency serious criminal situations.


For all police knew, there were dangerous psychopathic killers on the loose.


As acbytesla posted, random burglars who use burglary as a means to sexually assault victims, are typically serial killers.
__________________
In South Carolina there are many tall pines
I remember the oak tree that we used to climb
But now when I'm lonesome, I always pretend
That I'm getting the feel of hickory wind ~ Gram Parsons

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 31st January 2017, 03:10 PM   #240
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,390
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You quoted the relevant section yourself in the Italian Penal Code in respect of emergency serious criminal situations.


For all police knew, there were dangerous psychopathic killers on the loose.


As acbytesla posted, random burglars who use burglary as a means to sexually assault victims, are typically serial killers.

All of this is total and utter nonsense. Next.

(And even though ac's point is broadly correct, the police had CAUGHT the prospective serial killers and had safely got them behind bars. Jeez........)

Last edited by LondonJohn; 31st January 2017 at 03:11 PM.
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
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 12:41 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.