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

Closed Thread
Old 31st January 2017, 07:49 PM   #281
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Right nothing like the Olsen case.
Nothing like the Olsen case? Both were identified alone on CCTV, both left all the evidence, both confessed to being there to meet the victim alone and that the victim was attacked by a single attacker.

Sounds like your reasoning ability is flawed, which is typical of the PGP.
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 31st January 2017, 07:58 PM   #282
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Oh my Mignini had to inform her and stated that he did that she could make a "spontaneous statement" without a lawyer and he could not legally ask any questions. It would be correct then for him to tell her to begin with" I wish to spontaneously declare" ..
He "had to inform her"? As in "he had to allow Amanda a lawyer according to the law"? As in he had to provide Lumumba access to a lawyer since he was absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a suspect? Or Sollecito? That kind of "had to"?

Of course, if we had a video or recording of the interrogation, we'd know whose version of what happened is correct. That was entirely in the hands of Mignini. So which story Mignini gave as to why there was no recording is true? Budgetary restraints or that they were only "witnesses informed of the facts"?
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 31st January 2017, 08:06 PM   #283
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,661
Originally Posted by Stacyjs
Exactly! No one, especially a 20 year old with absolutely no legal background, would begin a statement with "I wish to spontaneously declare". She was obviously coached to say that OR Mignini simply made it up to cover his backside.
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Oh my Mignini had to inform her and stated that he did that she could make a "spontaneous statement" without a lawyer and he could not legally ask any questions. It would be correct then for him to tell her to begin with" I wish to spontaneously declare" ..
Ha! This makes it sound like Knox was eager that night to incriminate herself!!!! However, all we have to do is view the mandatory videotape/transcript... oh wait....
__________________
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 31st January 2017, 08:13 PM   #284
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,347
Since Briars and Vixen are having difficulty comprehending something so basic I will break it down into very simple circumstances that should be easy enough to grasp.

Imagine in the Kercher case the police were incompetent. We know they weren't, they were professional and competent, and caught all three killers - Amanda, her boyfriend, and Rudy. Obviously!

But let's imagine by chance they were incompetent, and were actually fooled by Amanda's staged break-in. I mean, obviously they saw right through it, but let's just pretend it fooled them as it was clearly intended to do.

Now they are looking for attacker(s) from outside the cottage, possibly burglars.

Eventually, Rudy Guede's friend informs the police to look into him, because he is suspicious of his behavior following the murder. Just as it actually did, this tip pays off and the police match Rudy's prints to the bloody palm print at the scene, and when they arrest him they match his DNA to the DNA taken from the rapekit.

They review the CCTV and see that Rudy was spotted snooping around the cottage, alone.

Rudy claims he was just there alone on a date with Meredith, and just as they were getting intimate a random male attacker comes in and kills Meredith.

The knife wounds on Meredith's body, and the bloody imprint next to the bed, are all found to be compatible with a small knife.

Rudy Guede has unexplained wounds on his hands, consistent with handling a knife during a violent attack.

Rudy is convicted as the only killer, and sentenced to 30 years.


Then I track down Briars and Vixen, wherever they are, and say "but what was her American roommates alibi? What if they found her DNA in her own sink she used every day? How do you know Rudy Guede did it alone? How do you know he didn't have a secret accomplice he never communicated with and didn't speak the same language as and didn't leave any evidence in the murder room?" And you both laugh at me for being stupid.

Meanwhile in this timeline....What was Amy's alibi while Ashley Olsen was being murdered?
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 31st January 2017, 08:30 PM   #285
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,061
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Point is though he understands Italian and law very well, and certainly found the passage worth mentioning as did Mignini another articulate Italian who quoted the same passage. You don't have to like them but they read what they read , because it's in the report.
As I said, it's a matter of optics. Kercher seems to want it both ways. He himself won't outright accuse Knox and Sollecito. He leaves that up to his hired gun.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 31st January 2017 at 08:35 PM.
acbytesla 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 31st January 2017, 10:15 PM   #286
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 394
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.
You still aren't addressing why Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba, all in custody, were not allowed a lawyer as law dictates. They had their killers in custody, there was no dangerous psychopathic killers on the loose.

Why don't you just be honest for once and admit Mignini violated the law in denying them legal council and likely he did this so as to ensure they were unprepared going into the initial Mattenini hearing, a move that would ensure they would remain in custody and stand trial.
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 31st January 2017, 11:10 PM   #287
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,661
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Well this theory makes little sense because Maresca has mentioned the passage that Amanda Knox was present on more than one occasion , pretty sure he grasped the meaning.
You are correct, Maresca has on more than one occasion said as you say. I was speculating on the reason why the Kerchers have never said this publicly.
__________________
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 1st February 2017, 12:56 AM   #288
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Strangely, Profazio caught the killer within about three days. Didn't see you moan about the police being 'too hasty' to find the perp in that case.

Would this be the same Profazio who discriminates against American women?
This would be the same Profazio who was involved in the extraction of two false confessions for rape by 2 immigrants a couple years later. Two men who were proved completely innocent. Yeah, THAT Profazio.
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 1st February 2017, 01:03 AM   #289
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
You still aren't addressing why Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba, all in custody, were not allowed a lawyer as law dictates. They had their killers in custody, there was no dangerous psychopathic killers on the loose.

Why don't you just be honest for once and admit Mignini violated the law in denying them legal council and likely he did this so as to ensure they were unprepared going into the initial Mattenini hearing, a move that would ensure they would remain in custody and stand trial.
Because that would be admitting that Mignini did something wrong? Just a wild guess.
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 1st February 2017, 01:37 AM   #290
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Families of murder victims (or accidents) should always be treated with utmost sensitivity. In Finland, such victims are never named. After the various high school shootings there, you didn't get newsflashes of the victims' faces or their names. Whilst I think there may be some public interest in perhaps having this information, I agree with strong privacy laws in Scandinavia.

A certain somebody did hack my linkedin page - would that be ethical in your view? A disturbed woman has offered to send someone pictures of Mez' naked torso in exchange for his following her on twitter. She adds hatefully, 'I'm sure Mez wouldn't mind'.

This is someone who has regularly attacked the Kerchers and sent the family pictures of vaseline jars and salacious references to 'brazilians'.
Do you REALLY think this type of behaviour is acceptable? Do you, Lojo, do you?

I have no desire to see any autopsy pictures and would look away. Not least because the sight of blood makes me feel faint. I like to follow trials, but I don't see anything untoward in that.

Of course the media can be sensitive over these cases. ISTM Amanda herself has been encouraging this woman and other dubious 'murder groupies' as she has never asked her fans to leave the Kercher family alone.

I know criminals like to see the police, the judge and the prosecutor as enemies (Jody Arias believed all the jurors were rubbish, except for the one who saved her from the death penalty). That's to be expected. What is disgusting are the Amanda and Raff fans who derive some kind of perverse pleasure in cruel comments directed at the Kercher family.

Please stop. The Kerchers are off limits. Please have some respect and decency.
This is a lie. During a discussion of when the bra was removed, a newcomer was asking about the aspirated blood on Meredith's chest showing she was still alive after her bra had been cut off. The "woman" offered to send him a picture via PM showing the aspirated drops. Since you can only PM someone who "follows" you, she suggested he follow her, which he did. I have seen the picture and it did NOT show her "naked torso" as you claim, but a very heavily censored photo that had the body completely obscured by a blue photoshop paint job with the torso simply outlined. The only part of the body visible was a small square area that showed the aspirated blood droplets. That's it.

Nor did this "woman" write "'I'm sure Mez wouldn't mind'. In fact, this is her tweet to him:

"Follow me & I will message you. Is from Frank Sfarzo's old site. The pro-guilt peeps will be up in arms but hey! MK understands."

As for the mention of "brazilians", that is another lie as nothing about brazilians was ever sent to the Kerchers...at least by this "woman". Present evidence of this or stop telling these lies.Do you REALLY think this type of behavior is acceptable? Do you, Vixen, do you?
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 1st February 2017, 02:00 AM   #291
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,430
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly! No one, especially a 20 year old with absolutely no legal background, would begin a statement with "I wish to spontaneously declare". She was obviously coached to say that OR Mignini simply made it up to cover his backside.
Don't be silly, it is standard template.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
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 1st February 2017, 02:04 AM   #292
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,430
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Nothing like the Olsen case? Both were identified alone on CCTV, both left all the evidence, both confessed to being there to meet the victim alone and that the victim was attacked by a single attacker.

Sounds like your reasoning ability is flawed, which is typical of the PGP.
Whoooo-oooosh!
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
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 1st February 2017, 02:05 AM   #293
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,430
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Ha! This makes it sound like Knox was eager that night to incriminate herself!!!! However, all we have to do is view the mandatory videotape/transcript... oh wait....
She was. Even her parents had to shut her up.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
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 1st February 2017, 02:08 AM   #294
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 416
PGP have defended the abuses committed by Mignini in the interrogations. I wonder what the reaction would be if judge Hellman had previously worked as a prosecutor and he had been involved in the interrogation of suspects where he denied the suspects access to lawyers, didn't tell them their rights and didn't tape the interrogations. I get the feeling the PGP would not defend Hellman if he had committed these abuses.

The PGP often display hypocrisy and the defence of what happened in the interrogations is an example. Vixen and Machiavelli accuse Hellman, C&V and the supreme court of being corrupt but defend Mignini who acted in a corrupt way by violating the rights of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogations. Vixen attacks people for being corrupt but thinks the sun shines out Mignini's backside a thoroughly corrupt scumbag.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 02:20 AM   #295
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,430
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Since Briars and Vixen are having difficulty comprehending something so basic I will break it down into very simple circumstances that should be easy enough to grasp.

Imagine in the Kercher case the police were incompetent. We know they weren't, they were professional and competent, and caught all three killers - Amanda, her boyfriend, and Rudy. Obviously!

But let's imagine by chance they were incompetent, and were actually fooled by Amanda's staged break-in. I mean, obviously they saw right through it, but let's just pretend it fooled them as it was clearly intended to do.

Now they are looking for attacker(s) from outside the cottage, possibly burglars.

Eventually, Rudy Guede's friend informs the police to look into him, because he is suspicious of his behavior following the murder. Just as it actually did, this tip pays off and the police match Rudy's prints to the bloody palm print at the scene, and when they arrest him they match his DNA to the DNA taken from the rapekit.

They review the CCTV and see that Rudy was spotted snooping around the cottage, alone.

Rudy claims he was just there alone on a date with Meredith, and just as they were getting intimate a random male attacker comes in and kills Meredith.

The knife wounds on Meredith's body, and the bloody imprint next to the bed, are all found to be compatible with a small knife.

Rudy Guede has unexplained wounds on his hands, consistent with handling a knife during a violent attack.

Rudy is convicted as the only killer, and sentenced to 30 years.


Then I track down Briars and Vixen, wherever they are, and say "but what was her American roommates alibi? What if they found her DNA in her own sink she used every day? How do you know Rudy Guede did it alone? How do you know he didn't have a secret accomplice he never communicated with and didn't speak the same language as and didn't leave any evidence in the murder room?" And you both laugh at me for being stupid.

Meanwhile in this timeline....What was Amy's alibi while Ashley Olsen was being murdered?

Please bagels, get a grip. The blood found in the bathroom was of the nature of a dripping knife. THe blood by the cotton bud box was undiluted, becoming more and more diluted as it was rinsed int he bidet and the sink. And what did the police find: yes, Amanda's DNA mixed in with Mez' and what's more in even higher quantity, which indicated to the dumb police that she was bleeding at the same time. In addition, the blood ont he tap was identified as Amanda's.

So they were supposed to disregard this, were they?
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
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 1st February 2017, 02:22 AM   #296
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,430
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
You still aren't addressing why Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba, all in custody, were not allowed a lawyer as law dictates. They had their killers in custody, there was no dangerous psychopathic killers on the loose.

Why don't you just be honest for once and admit Mignini violated the law in denying them legal council and likely he did this so as to ensure they were unprepared going into the initial Mattenini hearing, a move that would ensure they would remain in custody and stand trial.
No, he acted within the Italian Penal Code. If as you say there was no cause for concern, why were female students fleeing Perugia in a panic? (Except Amanda.)
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
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 1st February 2017, 03:04 AM   #297
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please bagels, get a grip. The blood found in the bathroom was of the nature of a dripping knife. THe blood by the cotton bud box was undiluted, becoming more and more diluted as it was rinsed int he bidet and the sink. And what did the police find: yes, Amanda's DNA mixed in with Mez' and what's more in even higher quantity, which indicated to the dumb police that she was bleeding at the same time. In addition, the blood ont he tap was identified as Amanda's.

So they were supposed to disregard this, were they?
It is a sign of desperation when PGP have to resort to making Amanda's DNA in her bathroom sound incriminating.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 03:20 AM   #298
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 580
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, he acted within the Italian Penal Code. If as you say there was no cause for concern, why were female students (and Guede) fleeing Perugia in a panic? (Except Amanda.)
(my edit)

Because she had to stay to help the police with their enquires. She did want to stay for a while in Germany.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto 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 1st February 2017, 04:03 AM   #299
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,450
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Because that would be admitting that Mignini did something wrong? Just a wild guess.

And this in turn links into something I talked about earlier, about my very first experiences with the online debate. As I mentioned, I started with a (misinformed) opinion of guilt, but at the same time I harboured clear misgivings about those interrogations of 5th/6th November. It very quickly became very obvious to me that there was a near-religious zeal among the pro-guilt community to dogmatically believe and promote the idea that EVERYTHING the police, prosecutors or judges (up to the Massei court at this point) did in this case was proper/fair/above board, and that EVERYTHING Knox and Sollecito did or said was wrong/evil/indicative of their guilt. Not surprisingly, alarm bells started ringing in my mind.

"Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaaaad"
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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 04:12 AM   #300
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,450
Originally Posted by toto View Post
(my edit)

Because she had to stay to help the police with their enquires. She did want to stay for a while in Germany.

Exactly. The police told Knox by around 3rd November (only two days after the discovery of the crime) that they needed her to stay in Italy. Now, the police had zero legal power to compel Knox to stay in Italy. Knox could have flown back to the US or gone to Germany had she wanted. But she obeyed the police - partly, I suspect, owing to her classic deference to authority (which the police and PM exploited time and again in this case), and partly owing to her desire to help the police if she could.

There's another interesting angle to all this, of course. The police - because they were tapping Knox's phone - knew that Knox's mother was on her way from Seattle to Perugia. Ostensibly, Knox's mother was coming to support and help her daughter. But evidence makes it abundantly clear that the police and PM feared that Knox's mother would simply pick up Knox and whisk her back to Seattle. The police and PM knew that Knox's mother was due to arrive in Perugia at around midday on 6th November. And again, evidence shows clearly that the police/PM were desperate to obtain a legal reason to arrest and detain Knox (whom, by that point, they had convinced themselves was deeply involved in the murder) before her mother arrived. Frankly, they needed some sort of confession from Sollecito and/or Knox which would constitute sufficient reason to arrest and detain Knox.

Seen in that light, I'd argue that the nature and scope of the 5th/6th Nov interrogations of Sollecito and Knox take on a different light. And I'd suggest that all of this adds yet more weight to the argument that the police considered Knox (in particular) a suspect of some form of serious criminal offence before she ever walked into the police station in the late evening of 5th November 2007.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 06:13 AM   #301
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please bagels, get a grip. The blood found in the bathroom was of the nature of a dripping knife. THe blood by the cotton bud box was undiluted, becoming more and more diluted as it was rinsed int he bidet and the sink. And what did the police find: yes, Amanda's DNA mixed in with Mez' and what's more in even higher quantity, which indicated to the dumb police that she was bleeding at the same time. In addition, the blood ont he tap was identified as Amanda's.

So they were supposed to disregard this, were they?
LOL. Ok. So you concede the point. Your DNA being found in your own sink you use every day and the last morning it was used is incriminating.
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 1st February 2017, 06:30 AM   #302
NotEvenWrong
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
LOL. Ok. So you concede the point. Your DNA being found in your own sink you use every day and the last morning it was used is incriminating.
Oh crap. Was there a pagan murder sorcery ritual in my own bathroom? Better get Vixen and ol' stinky Pete on the internet PR campaign. And that one guy who is God. Can't let those inventors of modern forensic DNA science get away with their lies (and that science stuff). What could possibly go wrong?

[9 years later]

M'lud we would like to submit that the burglar who left his DNA inside the dead girl was manipulated by a sex devil but was actually a nice guy. Furthermore, DNA found in your own sink proves you murdered someone. M'lud.

fx <enter Supreme Court> /fx

wtf you guys are seriously the dumbest bunch of nutjobs I've ever seen.

fx <enter the usual suspects> /fx

DIS CLEARLY PROVES THE SUPREME COURT WAS BRIBED.

And on and on it goes.
NotEvenWrong 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 1st February 2017, 07:38 AM   #303
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, he acted within the Italian Penal Code. If as you say there was no cause for concern, why were female students fleeing Perugia in a panic? (Except Amanda.)
I'm pretty sure at this point that not even you believe your own BS.

"fleeing Perugia in a panic" is a rather gross overstatement, but be that as it may, perhaps it might be because, unlike Mignini, the students didn't know the dastardly killers were in custody.

You are suggesting that following a single murder, ostensibly committed by a 20 year old American female in the country for just over a month and not yet speaking the language very well, a nerdy 20something computer major and a well known bar owner are just the tip of a murderous gang of serial killers engaged in turning Perugia into a slaughterhouse? Is THAT why it would have been so dangerous to allow these three heinous killers access to lawyers?

No, there was no threat to the public, no basis by which lawyers should have been withheld from them. I suspect even you know this in your heart but you, like Mignini before you, have become so entrenched in your own BS that there is no way out. It's all about saving face now.
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 1st February 2017, 07:43 AM   #304
js202
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 766
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Cheik Diaw confessed to a violent fight with the victim because she asked him to leave at some point. Not following your comparison
And as someone who was witnessed leaving a bar with his victim, Diaw had amply more excuse for having been in her apartment - and person - than did Rudy Guede, Meredith's. There is truly something broken with the ability to parse data on the PGP side.
js202 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 1st February 2017, 09:04 AM   #305
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,661
Originally Posted by TruthCalls
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Moderated content redacted.
When i posted a screen capture of a YouTube video of Mignini attending a "Satanism and the Law" conference, where he was called out of the audience to speak.....





Machiavelli assured us it was not what we thought. I don't speak Italian so really could not say for sure if the conference itself was simply reporting what others believe and are keeping an eye on, but Machiavelli would not provide translations.

IIRC the videos are now gone. At issue is if Mignini once offered "Satanic rite" as a motive. Machiavelli turned out to be correct, that that specific term had not been presented in any court record. What isn't clear is how Mignini may have spoken about it outside of court.
__________________
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 06:14 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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 09:20 AM   #306
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,061
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
When i posted a screen capture of a YouTube video of Mignini attending a "Satanism and the Law" conference, where he was called out of the audience to speak.....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...aa87b315e7.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...af3cd3ec23.jpg

Machiavelli assured us it was not what we thought. I don't speak Italian so really could not say for sure if the conference itself was simply reporting what others believe and are keeping an eye on, but Machiavelli would not provide translations.

IIRC the videos are now gone. At issue is if Mignini once offered "Satanic rite" as a motive. Machiavelli turned out to be correct, that that specific term had not been presented in any court record. What isn't clear is how Mignini may have spoken about it outside of court.
The point never was that Mignini suggested in court that it was a Satanic rituals but that it went into the prosecution's thinking at the beginning. But it doesn't really matter if Mignini is bat crap crazy or stubbornly stupid and dishonest. Frankly I believe he's a combination of both. What's clear is that Mignini did not perform his duties with any integrity and that resulted in problems for everyone.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 1st February 2017, 11:00 AM   #307
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
When i posted a screen capture of a YouTube video of Mignini attending a "Satanism and the Law" conference, where he was called out of the audience to speak.....

Machiavelli assured us it was not what we thought. I don't speak Italian so really could not say for sure if the conference itself was simply reporting what others believe and are keeping an eye on, but Machiavelli would not provide translations.

IIRC the videos are now gone. At issue is if Mignini once offered "Satanic rite" as a motive. Machiavelli turned out to be correct, that that specific term had not been presented in any court record. What isn't clear is how Mignini may have spoken about it outside of court.
I believe what Mignini said about the crime was that it;

"was premeditated and was in addition a rite celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier, but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda's Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day."

He clearly means to say the crime was the result of some satanic ritual, whether he uses that exact phrase or not. Satanism played a major role in his rationale for the MoF case as well. I won't say he sees satanism playing a role in all of his cases, but clearly he was convinced it played a major role in two of the largest cases he ever been involved in. To suggest this doesn't occlude his intellect is dishonest at best.
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 1st February 2017, 12:24 PM   #308
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm pretty sure at this point that not even you believe your own BS.

"fleeing Perugia in a panic" is a rather gross overstatement, but be that as it may, perhaps it might be because, unlike Mignini, the students didn't know the dastardly killers were in custody.

You are suggesting that following a single murder, ostensibly committed by a 20 year old American female in the country for just over a month and not yet speaking the language very well, a nerdy 20something computer major and a well known bar owner are just the tip of a murderous gang of serial killers engaged in turning Perugia into a slaughterhouse? Is THAT why it would have been so dangerous to allow these three heinous killers access to lawyers?

No, there was no threat to the public, no basis by which lawyers should have been withheld from them. I suspect even you know this in your heart but you, like Mignini before you, have become so entrenched in your own BS that there is no way out. It's all about saving face now.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. According to Vixen logic, any murder/sexual assault would qualify for withholding access to a lawyer.

I also suspect Vixen knows Mignini was wrong. She just will not admit it.
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 1st February 2017, 12:53 PM   #309
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,661
Originally Posted by TruthCalls
No, there was no threat to the public, no basis by which lawyers should have been withheld from them. I suspect even you know this in your heart but you, like Mignini before you, have become so entrenched in your own BS that there is no way out. It's all about saving face now.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. According to Vixen logic, any murder/sexual assault would qualify for withholding access to a lawyer.

I also suspect Vixen knows Mignini was wrong. She just will not admit it.
IIRC there is a practise in Italy of denying lawyers (until the last minute) to mafioso types, as their lawyers can be a conduit of information back to the outside world - naming those who need to be rubbed out so that the pending charges can go nowhere.

In that sense, the withholding of lawyers is justifies as public safety. I'm not sure anyone can point to a similar-fact murder (to the Kercher case) where suspects were denied counsel using mafia-busting techniques.

But we now may know where the "mafia conspiracy thinking" comes from.
__________________
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 1st February 2017, 01:31 PM   #310
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 580
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I believe what Mignini said about the crime was that it;

"was premeditated and was in addition a rite celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier, but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda's Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day."

He clearly means to say the crime was the result of some satanic ritual, whether he uses that exact phrase or not. Satanism played a major role in his rationale for the MoF case as well. I won't say he sees satanism playing a role in all of his cases, but clearly he was convinced it played a major role in two of the largest cases he ever been involved in. To suggest this doesn't occlude his intellect is dishonest at best.
It's the "postponed for one day" that is almost the most ridiculous point here.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto 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 1st February 2017, 01:51 PM   #311
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,661
Originally Posted by toto View Post
It's the "postponed for one day" that is almost the most ridiculous point here.
Don't be so cynical. It could have been a "Cinco de Mayo" crime, postponed 180 days. And, yes, I counted.
__________________
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 1st February 2017, 01:54 PM   #312
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,061
Originally Posted by toto View Post
It's the "postponed for one day" that is almost the most ridiculous point here.
You have to wonder how anyone would "go there". Mignini is a perfect example of why I hate religion. It's not that Amanda and Raffaele are practicing evil superstitions. It is Mignini that does. Christianity is a blood sacrificial cult and many of its adherents take it way too seriously.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 1st February 2017, 03:25 PM   #313
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,786
Before getting to a discussion of the reason the Hellmann court MR gave for convicting Knox of calunnia, and how she “knew” he was innocent, it may be useful to review why Knox named Lumumba and the significance of that, according to the reasoning of the Hellmann court MR. As carlofab, a poster on IIP, points out, “Hellman's motivation says Amanda's purpose in accusing Patrick was to end her abusive interrogation -- i.e., to tell police what they wanted to hear so they would leave her alone.”

And of course, the emphasis on Lumumba appears to have been, according to the Hellmann MR, “Because the police had found, on Amanda Knox’s phone, the message “see you later”, sent by her to Lumumba on the evening of November 1; which could also mean she actually intended to see him later to go somewhere, maybe to the house on Via Della Pergola — whence the insistent questioning about that message, its meaning, and its intended recipient.” There is a subtle bit of information here: the police had found the message on Knox's cell phone, which they had taken from her – “seized” is the usual legal term – without having obtained a warrant previous to the seizure.

This ties in to some information from the Boninsegna court MR, which acquitted Knox of the the charges of criminal calunnia against the police and Mignini. The Boninsegna court MR states that the seizure of Knox's phone showed that she was a (de facto*) suspect – and this was before she made any false accusation against Lumumba or falsely stated she was at the cottage during the murder.

Although Boninsegna does not provide in full the reasoning for Knox becoming a de facto suspect upon (or even before?) the seizure of her phone, here is my understanding of the situation.

Seizures of the corpus delicti (objects involved in the crime) and other physical items allegedly related to the offense require a warrant (reasoned decree) according to CPP Article 253. The police apparently considered the phone, which had a stored text message to Lumumba, evidence of the alleged arrangement of a meeting for the murder of Kercher. I am unsure if seizure of an object without a warrant from a suspect - not using the object as a weapon - during an interrogation may be justified under Italian law, but CPP Article 354 does provide for seizure of objects without a warrant under "urgent" conditions such as at the scene of a crime. These objects must be ones that the police consider the objects used in the crime (corpus delicti) or otherwise related to the crime. Thus, if CPP Article 354 applies, it would mean that the police assumed Knox's phone was intimately linked to the crime and that, therefore, she was a suspect before they seized (took) the phone with no prior warrant. And that was before she said anything incriminating about Lumumba.

But what else does the Hellmann court MR conclude, besides that Knox named Lumumba “to those who were interrogating her so harshly, {because} Amanda Knox probably hoped to put an end to that pressure, now a true torment after long hours”? It concludes that if Knox had been present in the cottage during the murder, whether having taken part in the crime against Kercher or only as an innocent observer, she would have known who the guilty person was, and she would have known that Lumumbas innocent. Furthermore, had she known who the guilty person was, there would be no logical reason to name an innocent person, who would be likely to be able to prove himself not at all involved in the crime, and demolish the credibility of her statement. This, in fact, turned out to be true, as Lumumba had a solid alibi, and someone else's – Guede's – DNA, not Lumumba's, would be found inside Kercher and on her clothing and purse.

But then how did the Hellmann court MR conclude that Knox's accusation against Lumumba satisfy the requirement of “knowing” that Lumumba was innocent?

Hellmann and the other Italian courts ignored relevant Italian procedural and criminal law. Besides CPP Articles 63 and 64, which would exclude Knox's statements because she was a suspect questioned as a witness, and without the warnings specified in either article, CPP Articles 188 and 191 would exclude use of her statements.

Article 188 – identical to Article 64.2 - states:
Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

Article 191 states:
1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

Finally, by attributing Knox's accusation against Lumumba as an act she intended, rather than one induced by psychological pressure, suggestions by the police that Knox was hiding information or had traumatic amnesia, and threats and low-level violence against her by the police, Hellmann places criminal responsibility for the false accusation on Knox. The Hellmann court states that Knox “knew” that Lumumba was innocent precisely because the police were hinting at his name, because Lumumba was the recipient of the phone message, and because supposedly Lumumba and Kercher had no connection and presumably this would be known by Knox, if indeed the lack of connection was fact. And Hellmann acknowledges that this was done to escape from police pressure.

But it would seem objectively that Knox was responding to police pressure by succumbing to a “method or technique that influenced her freedom of self-determination and altered her capacity to correctly recall and evaluate facts”. It is of interest that the MR does not discuss any testimony of Knox's memory expert, Professor Carlo Caltagirone. Failure to included an evaluation of significant defense arguments in the reasoning supporting conviction may be taken by the ECHR as indicating arbitrary reasoning, while the Hellmann court argument for Knox "knowing" Lumumba's innocence may be also viewed as arbitrary.

However, if the Hellmann court had stated that the police had used a memory-altering coercive method of interrogation, however, the Hellmann court would have been obliged to open an investigation into the conduct of the police. One must surmise such investigations are not welcomed in Italian judicial practice. Thus, it was more acceptable for the Hellmann court to convict Knox, sentence her to time already served in detention, and perhaps hope that the ECHR would someday straighten-out the legal mess created by the police, prosecutor, and courts in this case.
____
Here are supporting excepts from the Hellmann court MR:

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunitΰ] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent** [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

...{T}he circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder.
__
*Under Italian procedural law CPP Article 335, a person apparently becomes a formally recognized suspect when the prosecutor enters that person's name in a book. This book is a dedicated register retained in his office, in which he records any notice or allegation of a crime (notitia criminis) he receives or acquires on his own initiative. Simultaneously or at the moment it is known, the prosecutor records the name of the alleged perpetrator of the offense. Of course, prior to the placing of the person's name in the book the alleged perpetrator was already a suspect – before his name was placed in the register he was a “de facto” suspect. (Guilters apparently don't follow this logical conclusion.)

Under ECHR case law, and apparently under Italian jurisprudence, one becomes a de facto suspect when there is credible evidence that that the authorities consider that person a suspect; this is evidence is usually a sign of a change in status or condition of the individual, for example, when a supposed witness makes an incriminating statement during questioning, or police use certain methods such as threats or force to extract information from a supposed witness, or police use actions such as seizing possessions of a person with or without a warrant.

** The phrase “il dolo generico” may also be translated as “Generic malicious intent” or “Generic fraudulent intent” or even, perhaps, simply as “Generic intent”.

Last edited by Numbers; 1st February 2017 at 03:31 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 04:04 PM   #314
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,450
That last Hellmann quote is the key. He's basically saying that Knox must (reasonably) have known that Lumumba was innocent simply because Knox must have known how implausible and improbable it was that Lumumba would have been involved in the murder.

It's tantamount - in logic - to me accusing The Queen of the abduction/murder of Madeleine McCann. The rationale for concluding that I accused The Queen while knowing she was innocent is not based upon the premise that I myself was involved in the McCann abduction/murder (and thus I knew precisely who was and was not involved, and thus I knew that The Queen was not involved), but rather upon the premise that I must have known how hugely improbable (to the point of total impossibility in my example) it would have been for The Queen to have been involved in the McCann abduction/murder.

I find Hellmann's reasoning to be very flawed on this matter, since it cannot be correct to claim that a Knox who had not participated in the Kercher murder (nor been a witness to it in any way) MUST have known that Lumumba was not involved. Perhaps Hellmann was - without articulating it properly in his report - working on the inference that since Knox had no plausible reason for suspecting Lumumba, her naming of him amounted to the naming of a man whom she "knew" was innocent. (Of course, if one were going down this line of inquiry, it's already been established with very high confidence that the police were suggesting Lumumba as the murderer to Knox in that interrogation, so the idea that Knox "had no plausible reason for suspecting Lumumba" rather goes out of the window at that point.....).

Aside from all this, I think it's (regrettably) clear that Hellmann too was indoctrinated with the idea that the police and PM are fundamentally good, honest, scrupulously upstanding professionals. And that therefore if the police and PM said that Knox was not coerced in her interrogation to name Lumumba (and place herself at the scene), then that must by definition be the truth (and that, as a corollary, it must by definition be Knox who is lying about what happened in that interrogation). And if that were the case (in Hellmann's mind), then almost the only conclusion he could have drawn was that Knox - a Knox who in Hellman's opinion was innocent of participation in the murder - only had the motivation to name Lumumba as a ploy to terminate a distressing interrogation and be allowed to leave the police HQ and go home. Why else, Hellmann would have reasoned, would an innocent Knox have accused Lumumba? If you are not prepared to accept the idea of unlawful coercion by the police in that interrogation, and if you consider Knox innocent of the murder, it's effectively the only conclusion left for you to draw.....
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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 04:46 PM   #315
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please bagels, get a grip. The blood found in the bathroom was of the nature of a dripping knife. THe blood by the cotton bud box was undiluted, becoming more and more diluted as it was rinsed int he bidet and the sink. And what did the police find: yes, Amanda's DNA mixed in with Mez' and what's more in even higher quantity, which indicated to the dumb police that she was bleeding at the same time. In addition, the blood ont he tap was identified as Amanda's.

So they were supposed to disregard this, were they?
Steffanoni testified the source of DNA could not be known. Do you think she provided false testimony? Or was she incompetent? One cannot say that the quantity of DNA indicates its source.

I previously asked for the evidence that Knox's DNA was present in greater quantity than Kercher's, you failed to provide this.

The video of the swabbing of the bathroom basin and bidet show that the whole bowl was swabbed it is not possible to know that the DNA of Kercher and Knox were co-located or were separated in space. It is not possible to know when the DNA was deposited, the DNA of Knox and Kercher could have been deposited at different times.

In your fantasy you may choose to think that Knox was bleeding after attacking Kerchief, but there was no wound on her. there was no DNA of knox in Kercher's bedroom, none on Kercher's body. It was never testified to by Steffanoni. There is no evidence to support your sick fantasy about this case. You make up a scenario that not even the prosecution claimed.
Planigale 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 1st February 2017, 05:05 PM   #316
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,061
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
That last Hellmann quote is the key. He's basically saying that Knox must (reasonably) have known that Lumumba was innocent simply because Knox must have known how implausible and improbable it was that Lumumba would have been involved in the murder.

It's tantamount - in logic - to me accusing The Queen of the abduction/murder of Madeleine McCann. The rationale for concluding that I accused The Queen while knowing she was innocent is not based upon the premise that I myself was involved in the McCann abduction/murder (and thus I knew precisely who was and was not involved, and thus I knew that The Queen was not involved), but rather upon the premise that I must have known how hugely improbable (to the point of total impossibility in my example) it would have been for The Queen to have been involved in the McCann abduction/murder.

I find Hellmann's reasoning to be very flawed on this matter, since it cannot be correct to claim that a Knox who had not participated in the Kercher murder (nor been a witness to it in any way) MUST have known that Lumumba was not involved. Perhaps Hellmann was - without articulating it properly in his report - working on the inference that since Knox had no plausible reason for suspecting Lumumba, her naming of him amounted to the naming of a man whom she "knew" was innocent. (Of course, if one were going down this line of inquiry, it's already been established with very high confidence that the police were suggesting Lumumba as the murderer to Knox in that interrogation, so the idea that Knox "had no plausible reason for suspecting Lumumba" rather goes out of the window at that point.....).

Aside from all this, I think it's (regrettably) clear that Hellmann too was indoctrinated with the idea that the police and PM are fundamentally good, honest, scrupulously upstanding professionals. And that therefore if the police and PM said that Knox was not coerced in her interrogation to name Lumumba (and place herself at the scene), then that must by definition be the truth (and that, as a corollary, it must by definition be Knox who is lying about what happened in that interrogation). And if that were the case (in Hellmann's mind), then almost the only conclusion he could have drawn was that Knox - a Knox who in Hellman's opinion was innocent of participation in the murder - only had the motivation to name Lumumba as a ploy to terminate a distressing interrogation and be allowed to leave the police HQ and go home. Why else, Hellmann would have reasoned, would an innocent Knox have accused Lumumba? If you are not prepared to accept the idea of unlawful coercion by the police in that interrogation, and if you consider Knox innocent of the murder, it's effectively the only conclusion left for you to draw.....
I'm convinced that the queen knows more than she has said. I mean really, where was Prince Harry that night?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 1st February 2017, 05:55 PM   #317
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,786
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
That last Hellmann quote is the key. He's basically saying that Knox must (reasonably) have known that Lumumba was innocent simply because Knox must have known how implausible and improbable it was that Lumumba would have been involved in the murder.

It's tantamount - in logic - to me accusing The Queen of the abduction/murder of Madeleine McCann. The rationale for concluding that I accused The Queen while knowing she was innocent is not based upon the premise that I myself was involved in the McCann abduction/murder (and thus I knew precisely who was and was not involved, and thus I knew that The Queen was not involved), but rather upon the premise that I must have known how hugely improbable (to the point of total impossibility in my example) it would have been for The Queen to have been involved in the McCann abduction/murder.

I find Hellmann's reasoning to be very flawed on this matter, since it cannot be correct to claim that a Knox who had not participated in the Kercher murder (nor been a witness to it in any way) MUST have known that Lumumba was not involved. Perhaps Hellmann was - without articulating it properly in his report - working on the inference that since Knox had no plausible reason for suspecting Lumumba, her naming of him amounted to the naming of a man whom she "knew" was innocent. (Of course, if one were going down this line of inquiry, it's already been established with very high confidence that the police were suggesting Lumumba as the murderer to Knox in that interrogation, so the idea that Knox "had no plausible reason for suspecting Lumumba" rather goes out of the window at that point.....).

Aside from all this, I think it's (regrettably) clear that Hellmann too was indoctrinated with the idea that the police and PM are fundamentally good, honest, scrupulously upstanding professionals. And that therefore if the police and PM said that Knox was not coerced in her interrogation to name Lumumba (and place herself at the scene), then that must by definition be the truth (and that, as a corollary, it must by definition be Knox who is lying about what happened in that interrogation). And if that were the case (in Hellmann's mind), then almost the only conclusion he could have drawn was that Knox - a Knox who in Hellman's opinion was innocent of participation in the murder - only had the motivation to name Lumumba as a ploy to terminate a distressing interrogation and be allowed to leave the police HQ and go home. Why else, Hellmann would have reasoned, would an innocent Knox have accused Lumumba? If you are not prepared to accept the idea of unlawful coercion by the police in that interrogation, and if you consider Knox innocent of the murder, it's effectively the only conclusion left for you to draw.....
Some (perhaps the PIP?) have suggested that Hellmann realized that Knox had made under false accusation against Lumumba only as a result of police coercion (see the long statement in the Hellmann court MR describing Knox's vulnerabilities [weaknesses such as imperfect understanding of the laws and Italian language, interrogation lasting day and night, etc.] and that she should have had a lawyer during the interrogation) but that Hellmann wished to avoid attributing any negative action to the police, possibly to placate the CSC and induce them to accept the acquittal for murder/rape.
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 1st February 2017, 06:01 PM   #318
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,845
No one knows what happened in the deliberations

Or perhaps Hellman was simply outvoted by the lay judges and had to come up with a rationale. Who knows?
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 1st February 2017 at 06:04 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 06:16 PM   #319
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,661
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Or perhaps Hellman was simply outvoted by the lay judges and had to come up with a rationale. Who knows?
Then again even the 2015 ISC said that Knox wss interrogated in a context "institutionally immune" from pressure - so even the Marasca-Bruno panel seemed to back the notion that on some things a PM can do no wrong.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 1st February 2017 at 06:30 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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2017, 06:18 PM   #320
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,065
Mod WarningThirty-six posts on religion have been excised from this thread. This thread is not about religion. We have an entire section of the forum set aside for the discussion of religion and related topics. Here is not that place.

If you'd like to rekindle the discussion, feel free to do so, but in a proper thread of its own in the proper section of the forum. Once again, here is not that place.
Posted By:jsfisher
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost

Last edited by jsfisher; 1st February 2017 at 07:57 PM.
jsfisher 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 04:22 AM.
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.