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 28th January 2017, 10:27 PM   #41
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,895
With regard to filing complaints in Italy: the purpose of a complaint is to generate a prosecution against someone who has allegedly committed an offense of a certain class.

Knox's goal, however, was primarily to demonstrate to the court that her statement should not be used because, in part, of the coercion she alleged. Because the complaint would need to be filed with the prosecutor's office that was the one prosecuting her for the murder/rape and calunnia, there would be a conflict of interest and a complaint would not likely be successful. In fact, she was accused of calunnia against the police and the prosecutor for stating in testimony in open court (Massei presiding) that she had been hit and otherwise mistreated by the police. This indicates that a complaint would not have been of any use; it would have led to no action except possibly a charge of calunnia.

The ECHR in its case law maintains that raising a complaint of mistreatment by the police in court, and continuing the complaint in each appeal, is sufficient to exhaust domestic remedies. Furthermore, according to ECHR case law, the statement in court of a complaint alleging mistreatment by the authorities must generate an investigation by independent authorities; such an investigation was not launched. Rather, Knox was charged with criminal calunnia against the police, as mentioned above.

This complaint or search for a domestic remedy was exhausted by her appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel on the conviction by the Hellman court on the charge of criminal calunnia against Lumumba. However, this appeal was reject and the conviction made final.

ECHR case law states that there can be no remedy for a trial in which an interrogation statement obtained from a person in an interrogation conducted without a lawyer was used in a trial to convict that person, except conducting another trial which respects the Convention and ECHR case law in which that interrogation statement is not admitted into evidence. No testimony or document about that statement would be admissible.

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 10:44 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 28th January 2017, 10:33 PM   #42
Ergon
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
With regard to filing complaints in Italy: the purpose of a complaint is to generate a prosecution against someone who has allegedly committed an offense of a certain class.

Knox's goal, however, was primarily to demonstrate to the court that her statement should not be used because, in part, of the coercion she alleged. Because the complaint would need to be filed with the prosecutor's office that was the one prosecuting her for the murder/rape and calunnia, there would be a conflict of interest and a complaint would not likely be successful. In fact, she was accused of calunnia against the police and the prosecutor for stating in testimony in open court (Massei presiding) that she had been hit and otherwise mistreated by the police. This indicates that a complaint would not have been of any use; it would have led to no action except possibly a charge of calunnia.

The ECHR in its case law maintains that raising a complaint of mistreatment by the police in court, and continuing the complaint in each appeal, is sufficient to exhaust domestic remedies.
In short, she didn't file in Italy or exhaust her remedies there? I doubt the European Court will accept that argument. You do realize that under Italian law her attorney is required to file a complaint if his client tells him she has been mistreated?
Ergon 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 28th January 2017, 10:53 PM   #43
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,895
ECHR case law over-rides domestic law, and ECHR is not an Italian court, but the Council of Europe human rights court. The ECHR is governed by the European Convention on Human Rights and its case law. Italy is obligated by treaty, as a member of the Council of Europe, to follow the final judgments of the ECHR.
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 28th January 2017, 11:21 PM   #44
Ergon
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
ECHR case law over-rides domestic law, and ECHR is not an Italian court, but the Council of Europe human rights court. The ECHR is governed by the European Convention on Human Rights and its case law. Italy is obligated by treaty, as a member of the Council of Europe, to follow the final judgments of the ECHR.
It is also bound by its own rules. Please read the part where it says all remedies must have been exhausted and b) it doesn't overturn national decisions.
Ergon 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 28th January 2017, 11:37 PM   #45
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,895
Knox was considered a de facto suspect when she made her statements during her interrogation, according to the judgments of the Gemelli CSC panel and the Boninsegan court.

Here is ECHR case law stated in one of many cases regarding violations of the right of a person under interrogation to the presence of a defense lawyer, including at a first interrogation, and including when the person is supposedly treated as a witness.

SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE 16404/03 19/02/2009 (excerpts; citations omitted for clarity)

53. The Court also reiterates that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial. Furthermore, Article 6 may also be relevant before a case is sent for trial and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with it. The manner in which Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) are applied during the investigation depends on the special features of the proceedings and the facts of the case. Article 6 will normally require that the accused already be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.


55. As regards the use of evidence obtained in breach of the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court recalls that these are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair trial under Article 6. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused.

60. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant was denied a fair trial. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

64. The Court notes that where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 11:38 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 29th January 2017, 12:23 AM   #46
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,895
Some information on ECHR case law on admissibility. It's the ECHR and its case law that determines admissibility.

66. If more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.); Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.); Karakó v. Hungary, § 14; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], § 39). Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required (Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, § 84; Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], §§ 40 et seq.; Micallef v. Malta [GC], § 58). It is for the applicant to select the remedy that is most appropriate in his or her case. To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective (Jasinskis v. Latvia, §§ 50 and 53-54).

76. Where the government claims non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it bears the burden of proving that the applicant has not used a remedy that was both effective and available (Dalia v. France, § 38; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], § 107). The availability of any such remedy must be sufficiently certain in law and in practice (Vernillo v. France). The remedy’s basis in domestic law must therefore be clear (Scavuzzo-Hager and Others v. Switzerland (dec.); Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, § 117; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], §§ 110-12). The remedy must be capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and of offering reasonable prospects of success (Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], § 71). The development and availability of a remedy said to exist, including its scope and application, must be clearly set out and confirmed or complemented by practice or case-law (Mikolajová v. Slovakia, § 34). ….

80. One such factor {overcoming an otherwise credible government claim that a remedy was available} may be constituted by the national authorities remaining totally passive in the face of serious allegations of misconduct or infliction of harm by State agents, for example where they have failed to undertake investigations or offer assistance. In such circumstances it can be said that the burden of proof shifts once again, so that it becomes incumbent on the respondent government to show what it has done in response to the scale and seriousness of the matters complained of (Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], § 70).


Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?...277355_pointer

PDF: PRACTICAL GUIDE ON ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA
____

Knox first complained of mistreatment by the police in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, 2007. This document, which she wrote by hand in English, produced no response from the police, prosecution, or courts, except that it was used by the Gemelli CSC panel to justify the use of her statements from Nov. 5/6, 2007 as the basis of a criminal charge of calunnia against her, despite the Gemelli CSC panel otherwise finding her to be a suspect improperly questioned based on Italian law, in violation of CPP Article 63, and thus her statements of Nov. 5/6 could not be used against her for the charges of murder and rape.

The Gemelli CSC panel motivation report, the Hellmann court motivation report, and the Boninsegna motivation report all provide support for Knox's case that her rights under the Convention were violated when she was convicted of calunnia against Lumumba based on statements she had made in an interrogation with no defense lawyer present and subjected to alleged mistreatment and psychological pressure to alter her will and ability to recall and evaluate facts (such mistreatment and pressure - or even positive treatment - being itself a violation of Italian procedural law, CPP Article 188, and ECHR case law).

Paragraph 76 is relevant to the proposition that Knox and her lawyers should have filed an official complaint. First, Knox's Memoriale 1 constituted a complaint in writing that the police and prosecution would be obligated to pursue, and notify Knox and her lawyers of any need to file an official complaint. But Memoriale 1 was a complaint to the same police who it also accused of mistreatment, and they took no action to investigate or seek an official complaint. Thus, the route of an official complaint could not be of practical effect. Futhermore, the ECHR would require Italy to show an instance where such a complaint had the effect of rendering an interrogated person's statements inadmissible in court.

Last edited by Numbers; 29th January 2017 at 12:38 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 01:13 AM   #47
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Meredith sent kisses to Amanda the night before.
That's because Mez was a thoroughly nice person.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 01:14 AM   #48
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You simply don't know what you are talking about. Luminol is good tool for covering large areas, but in of itself is poor since many substances react to it. It REQUIRES confirmatory tests to go beyond mere suspicion.
So does TMB.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 01:19 AM   #49
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
What is also important is that most cells are quite big with only one nucleus, so DNA density is not that great. Blood cells are relatively small so DNA density is relatively high. Blood also clots so it sticks which is not true for other tissues. The very small size of blood cells in particular the red cells and the liquid nature of blood means it gets into cracks that other tissue will not.

So you posit that some sort of cleaning process was undertaken that removed all the blood, the blood associated DNA even from the junction of the hilt and blade, but left a lump of skin in place? Even more extraordinarily in the prosecution case and an example of the bias by the forensic scientist involved is the suggestion that the victims DNA can be removed except for the very slightest trace whereas the DNA of the wielder is left intact. An honest interpretation would have said that Knox's DNA on the handle cannot be from the murder as any DNA of the person who used the knife would be present in much smaller amounts than the victims and no known cleaning method would remove selectively the DNA of the victim but not the murderer.

One of the issues is not just that the science needs to be done correctly. but that it needs to be interpreted correctly and in a neutral fashion to the courts.Unfortunately Steffanoni failed on both these issues.

The organic material was found in a striation. So although the knife might look shiny clean, on closer examination you can see scouring marks.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 01:21 AM   #50
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Vixen continues to make the classic mistake of using her bias to manipulate the evidence as opposed to following the evidence.
I am objectively neutral and not biased at all. From where I stand I can't see you have presented any valid case showing a mass conspiracy.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 01:28 AM   #51
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
With regard to filing complaints in Italy: the purpose of a complaint is to generate a prosecution against someone who has allegedly committed an offense of a certain class.

Knox's goal, however, was primarily to demonstrate to the court that her statement should not be used because, in part, of the coercion she alleged. Because the complaint would need to be filed with the prosecutor's office that was the one prosecuting her for the murder/rape and calunnia, there would be a conflict of interest and a complaint would not likely be successful. In fact, she was accused of calunnia against the police and the prosecutor for stating in testimony in open court (Massei presiding) that she had been hit and otherwise mistreated by the police. This indicates that a complaint would not have been of any use; it would have led to no action except possibly a charge of calunnia.

The ECHR in its case law maintains that raising a complaint of mistreatment by the police in court, and continuing the complaint in each appeal, is sufficient to exhaust domestic remedies. Furthermore, according to ECHR case law, the statement in court of a complaint alleging mistreatment by the authorities must generate an investigation by independent authorities; such an investigation was not launched. Rather, Knox was charged with criminal calunnia against the police, as mentioned above.

This complaint or search for a domestic remedy was exhausted by her appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel on the conviction by the Hellman court on the charge of criminal calunnia against Lumumba. However, this appeal was reject and the conviction made final.

ECHR case law states that there can be no remedy for a trial in which an interrogation statement obtained from a person in an interrogation conducted without a lawyer was used in a trial to convict that person, except conducting another trial which respects the Convention and ECHR case law in which that interrogation statement is not admitted into evidence. No testimony or document about that statement would be admissible.

A complaint against a doctor has nothing to do with the prosecutors.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 02:00 AM   #52
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
With regard to filing complaints in Italy: the purpose of a complaint is to generate a prosecution against someone who has allegedly committed an offense of a certain class.

Knox's goal, however, was primarily to demonstrate to the court that her statement should not be used because, in part, of the coercion she alleged. Because the complaint would need to be filed with the prosecutor's office that was the one prosecuting her for the murder/rape and calunnia, there would be a conflict of interest and a complaint would not likely be successful. In fact, she was accused of calunnia against the police and the prosecutor for stating in testimony in open court (Massei presiding) that she had been hit and otherwise mistreated by the police. This indicates that a complaint would not have been of any use; it would have led to no action except possibly a charge of calunnia.

The ECHR in its case law maintains that raising a complaint of mistreatment by the police in court, and continuing the complaint in each appeal, is sufficient to exhaust domestic remedies. Furthermore, according to ECHR case law, the statement in court of a complaint alleging mistreatment by the authorities must generate an investigation by independent authorities; such an investigation was not launched. Rather, Knox was charged with criminal calunnia against the police, as mentioned above.

This complaint or search for a domestic remedy was exhausted by her appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel on the conviction by the Hellman court on the charge of criminal calunnia against Lumumba. However, this appeal was reject and the conviction made final.

ECHR case law states that there can be no remedy for a trial in which an interrogation statement obtained from a person in an interrogation conducted without a lawyer was used in a trial to convict that person, except conducting another trial which respects the Convention and ECHR case law in which that interrogation statement is not admitted into evidence. No testimony or document about that statement would be admissible.
If a suspect is denied their legal rights, then it is of course meet and proper they have the right to redress.

However, there is a fine line between a voluntary act of telling the police of an incriminating act and whether there was a breach in taking a signed statement to this effect without a lawyer. In this case, the interview (not an interrogation, as only a prosecutor has the power to interogate in Italy) was terminated as soon as her confession of taking Patrick to the cottage and witnessing the rape and murder was made. She then pressed a privately written memo into Police Officer Ficarra's hand. Nobody witnessed Ficarra slapping Amanda, as she claims. It could be seen to be revenge for having rashly imposed the 'present' on Ficarra(_sp?).

Her mention of police brutality within this memo is not the same thing as issuing a complaint against the police. Her lawyer or the US ambassador should have done it.

|In any case, her statements and late night email were not admitted as evidence, although technically one or two of them could have been. It is a measure of how the courts bent over backwards for the kids in excluding them.

Having said that, given the extremely serious nature of the crime, the police have reasonable power to take emergency measures to prevent a possible repetition of the crime - remember, hundreds of frightened foreign students fled Perugia - and had to take reasonable steps to secure the custody of the perpetrators.

For example, the Boston Bomber, and the more recent alleged Berlin lorry driver terrorist, were pictured as being covered in bruises and cuts. They look as though they were beaten up badly in the police capturing them. The killer of army man Rigby is suing for the police knocking out his two front teeth. No doubt he'll get the £20K compo he's demanding.

It could be argued that police were acting quite reasonably and within their remit in taking what Amanda said seriously and securing it in writing promptly.

We have to bear in mind, even if a right was breached, it doesn't make the serious crime any the less. The police were entitled - it could be argued - to use reasonable force, even if it means causing injury to a dangerous terrorist - in securing public safety.

Amanda, having made her confession and false allegation against Patrick verbally, cunningly put it in writing, adding that she had been assaulted by the police and pressured in so doing. It could be seen as an attempt to manipulate in face of her realising she was in serious trouble.

There is a sketch in Harry Enfield of a little boy bullying his baby sister mercilessly and when the parents intervene, he bursts into tears pitifully, points his finger at his little sister and bawls, 'She hit me!'

<sfx canned laughter>
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP

Last edited by Vixen; 29th January 2017 at 02:08 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 03:11 AM   #53
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,267
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Some information on ECHR case law on admissibility. It's the ECHR and its case law that determines admissibility.

66. If more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.); Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.); Karakó v. Hungary, § 14; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], § 39). Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required (Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, § 84; Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], §§ 40 et seq.; Micallef v. Malta [GC], § 58). It is for the applicant to select the remedy that is most appropriate in his or her case. To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective (Jasinskis v. Latvia, §§ 50 and 53-54).

76. Where the government claims non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it bears the burden of proving that the applicant has not used a remedy that was both effective and available (Dalia v. France, § 38; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], § 107). The availability of any such remedy must be sufficiently certain in law and in practice (Vernillo v. France). The remedy’s basis in domestic law must therefore be clear (Scavuzzo-Hager and Others v. Switzerland (dec.); Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, § 117; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], §§ 110-12). The remedy must be capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and of offering reasonable prospects of success (Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], § 71). The development and availability of a remedy said to exist, including its scope and application, must be clearly set out and confirmed or complemented by practice or case-law (Mikolajová v. Slovakia, § 34). ….

80. One such factor {overcoming an otherwise credible government claim that a remedy was available} may be constituted by the national authorities remaining totally passive in the face of serious allegations of misconduct or infliction of harm by State agents, for example where they have failed to undertake investigations or offer assistance. In such circumstances it can be said that the burden of proof shifts once again, so that it becomes incumbent on the respondent government to show what it has done in response to the scale and seriousness of the matters complained of (Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], § 70).


Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?...277355_pointer

PDF: PRACTICAL GUIDE ON ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA
____

Knox first complained of mistreatment by the police in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, 2007. This document, which she wrote by hand in English, produced no response from the police, prosecution, or courts, except that it was used by the Gemelli CSC panel to justify the use of her statements from Nov. 5/6, 2007 as the basis of a criminal charge of calunnia against her, despite the Gemelli CSC panel otherwise finding her to be a suspect improperly questioned based on Italian law, in violation of CPP Article 63, and thus her statements of Nov. 5/6 could not be used against her for the charges of murder and rape.

The Gemelli CSC panel motivation report, the Hellmann court motivation report, and the Boninsegna motivation report all provide support for Knox's case that her rights under the Convention were violated when she was convicted of calunnia against Lumumba based on statements she had made in an interrogation with no defense lawyer present and subjected to alleged mistreatment and psychological pressure to alter her will and ability to recall and evaluate facts (such mistreatment and pressure - or even positive treatment - being itself a violation of Italian procedural law, CPP Article 188, and ECHR case law).

Paragraph 76 is relevant to the proposition that Knox and her lawyers should have filed an official complaint. First, Knox's Memoriale 1 constituted a complaint in writing that the police and prosecution would be obligated to pursue, and notify Knox and her lawyers of any need to file an official complaint. But Memoriale 1 was a complaint to the same police who it also accused of mistreatment, and they took no action to investigate or seek an official complaint. Thus, the route of an official complaint could not be of practical effect. Futhermore, the ECHR would require Italy to show an instance where such a complaint had the effect of rendering an interrogated person's statements inadmissible in court.
There is also an argument that once Mignini had been sanctioned for preventing access to counsel of the suspects this should in itself triggered a review of the case.
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 29th January 2017, 03:31 AM   #54
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,267
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The organic material was found in a striation. So although the knife might look shiny clean, on closer examination you can see scouring marks.
or were these scouring marks from cleaning the knife?

The point is if the knife was the murder weapon it would have been covered in blood, (see the bloody imprint if you believe Crini), it is so thoroughly cleaned that not a trace of blood is left, in these circumstances we are expected to believe the DNA from the person who held the knife is left intact? The argument that Knox's DNA on the handle represented evidence she stabbed the victim is clearly fatuous. Steffanoni should have understood this and in interpreting the findings to the court made this clear. She did not. Indeed she even implied that one could interpret from the sites she sampled for DNA on the handle one could draw conclusions about the grip the knife was held in. This is an egregious example of bias and interpretation that has become fantasy. This is the scientist as magician. Something mysterious is done with a fancy machine in the laboratory then Steffanoni stands up and says (not an actual literal quote), my tests show Knox held the knife like this when she stabbed the victim. Clearly this sort of testimony has a big impact on courts. This sort of faux expert opinion is a common them in false convictions.

Fat cells and muscle cells are all big cells, in an earlier post I did the calculations, per volume blood contains more DNA than fat or muscle.
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 29th January 2017, 04:02 AM   #55
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,267
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If a suspect is denied their legal rights, then it is of course meet and proper they have the right to redress.

However, there is a fine line between a voluntary act of telling the police of an incriminating act and whether there was a breach in taking a signed statement to this effect without a lawyer. In this case, the interview (not an interrogation, as only a prosecutor has the power to interogate in Italy) was terminated as soon as her confession of taking Patrick to the cottage and witnessing the rape and murder was made. She then pressed a privately written memo into Police Officer Ficarra's hand. Nobody witnessed Ficarra slapping Amanda, as she claims. It could be seen to be revenge for having rashly imposed the 'present' on Ficarra(_sp?).

Her mention of police brutality within this memo is not the same thing as issuing a complaint against the police. Her lawyer or the US ambassador should have done it.

|In any case, her statements and late night email were not admitted as evidence, although technically one or two of them could have been. It is a measure of how the courts bent over backwards for the kids in excluding them.

Having said that, given the extremely serious nature of the crime, the police have reasonable power to take emergency measures to prevent a possible repetition of the crime - remember, hundreds of frightened foreign students fled Perugia - and had to take reasonable steps to secure the custody of the perpetrators.

For example, the Boston Bomber, and the more recent alleged Berlin lorry driver terrorist, were pictured as being covered in bruises and cuts. They look as though they were beaten up badly in the police capturing them. The killer of army man Rigby is suing for the police knocking out his two front teeth. No doubt he'll get the £20K compo he's demanding.

It could be argued that police were acting quite reasonably and within their remit in taking what Amanda said seriously and securing it in writing promptly.

We have to bear in mind, even if a right was breached, it doesn't make the serious crime any the less. The police were entitled - it could be argued - to use reasonable force, even if it means causing injury to a dangerous terrorist - in securing public safety.

Amanda, having made her confession and false allegation against Patrick verbally, cunningly put it in writing, adding that she had been assaulted by the police and pressured in so doing. It could be seen as an attempt to manipulate in face of her realising she was in serious trouble.

There is a sketch in Harry Enfield of a little boy bullying his baby sister mercilessly and when the parents intervene, he bursts into tears pitifully, points his finger at his little sister and bawls, 'She hit me!'

<sfx canned laughter>
As mentioned above the ECHR is not bound by Italian law. It does not matter what term is used in the Italian system to classify different interviews. From the ECHR PoV they will take a pragmatic view if it sound like an interview of a suspect the it is an interview of a suspect, and the appropriate rights and protections apply. It is the responsibility of the Italian state to ensure their systems are ECHR compliant.

In the UK if a witness made an admission that would make them a suspect, the interview would be stopped, (except in certain exigent circumstances), the individual cautioned and arrangements made to continue the interview with benefit of counsel.

Mignini's actions were done deliberately to evade the necessity of providing Knox with counsel. Creating the spontaneous declaration. Again ECHR will be uninterested about whether this skirted within Italian law. The right to a lawyer is a positive right, if in doubt it should apply. It is not something to be avoided by the authorities. Mignini's intent was clear because he continued to deny access to counsel until immediately before the first court appearance. Something for which he was disciplined. This pattern of behaviour by Mignini is something that will make defence against Knox's claim for breach of right to a lawyer difficult for Italy to defend. It is hard to see how ECHR can do other than find in Knox's favour given that Mignini has been found to be in the wrong. The consequence in terms of the callunia conviction I cannot predict.

Last edited by Planigale; 29th January 2017 at 04:03 AM.
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 29th January 2017, 04:37 AM   #56
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The police were entitled - it could be argued - to use reasonable force, even if it means causing injury to a dangerous terrorist - in securing public safety.
Lol the police rushed to solve a puzzle they themselves created. By assuming the break-in was absolutely staged, they had constrained their investigation to inevitably lead to Amanda and only Amanda. It was incapable of concluding anything else.

They're like someone presented with the problem X + Y = 10, arbitrarily assuming Y is 4, and patting themselves on the back for figuring out what X must be.

The only reason they were ever able to solve this crime at all and find the guy who was actually walking around covered in Meredith's blood, is because a witness had come to them independently while they were busy chasing their own tail and said "uh, theres this guy i know you should probably look into..."
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 29th January 2017, 04:55 AM   #57
Diocletus
Illuminator
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by Ergon View Post
It still is quite a leap of faith to assume that after the examination of the merits a court will then find her rights were violated since the answer to whether she exhausted she exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention might well be no?

In short, did her lawyer file a complaint before the relevant judicial authority, and how and when was it finally resolved?
Her argument is essentially that she didn't get a fair trial because they used illegal evidence against her. The echr is not going to decide that you have to institute a collateral prosecution in order not to have illegal evidence used against you. The application will be admissible (possibly a direct claim under Art 3, as opposed to a claim for Art.3's preclusionary rule, would be inadmissible, but I don't believe that she asserts such a claim).
__________________
Forza Italia
Diocletus 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 29th January 2017, 05:06 AM   #58
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,925
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am objectively neutral and not biased at all. From where I stand I can't see you have presented any valid case showing a mass conspiracy.
LMAO
1. You're not objectively neutral

2. There doesn't have to be any conspiracy. Group think doesn't constitute as a conspiracy. It is in fact quite common.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 06:41 AM   #59
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,895
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
As mentioned above the ECHR is not bound by Italian law. It does not matter what term is used in the Italian system to classify different interviews. From the ECHR PoV they will take a pragmatic view if it sound like an interview of a suspect the it is an interview of a suspect, and the appropriate rights and protections apply. It is the responsibility of the Italian state to ensure their systems are ECHR compliant.

In the UK if a witness made an admission that would make them a suspect, the interview would be stopped, (except in certain exigent circumstances), the individual cautioned and arrangements made to continue the interview with benefit of counsel.

Mignini's actions were done deliberately to evade the necessity of providing Knox with counsel. Creating the spontaneous declaration. Again ECHR will be uninterested about whether this skirted within Italian law. The right to a lawyer is a positive right, if in doubt it should apply. It is not something to be avoided by the authorities. Mignini's intent was clear because he continued to deny access to counsel until immediately before the first court appearance. Something for which he was disciplined. This pattern of behaviour by Mignini is something that will make defence against Knox's claim for breach of right to a lawyer difficult for Italy to defend. It is hard to see how ECHR can do other than find in Knox's favour given that Mignini has been found to be in the wrong. The consequence in terms of the callunia conviction I cannot predict.
Yes, as you point out, the ECHR views actions in the real, "historical truth" sense rather than the constructed or fictive "judicial truth" sense used by many judges in the Italian courts.

But the ECHR will also examine, as it does in all cases, Italian law and relevant court decisions for whether or not Knox's Convention rights were respected on the basis of those laws. For example, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, in review Knox's complaints about the Nov. 5/6 interrogation violating her defense rights, agreed there was a violation of CPP Article 63. That court, the Gemelli CSC panel, thus stated that, regarding Knox, her statements from that interrogation could not be used against her in the trial for the murder - rape of Kercher. But, because Knox had written the Nov. 6 Memoirale 1, in which Knox stated the following: "...In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received," the Gemelli CSC panel held that the interrogation statements could be used in the criminal calunnia trial (simultaneous with the murder-rape trial) against Knox. This difference in the application of Italian law may be one item of interest to the ECHR.

There are other issues the ECHR will likely examine. These include that Mignini launched a prosecution against Knox for criminal calunnia against the police and himself as a result of her testifying during the trial (Massei presiding) about the events of the interrogation. The Boninsegna court ruled that Knox did not commit calunnia because her defense rights under Italian law and Constitution were not respected, so the act of the crime of calunnia had not occurred. The Hellmann court implied, in its motivation report, a violation of Knox's defense rights in the interrogation. Thus, Italian courts found that Knox's defense rights under Italian law had been violated to obtain evidence and yet the evidence was introduced in court to obtain a conviction. Italian law, CPP 191, states that evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used. The ECHR will conclude that the Convention was violated, with Knox's conviction in the trial for calunnia against Lumumba being unfair, since evidence not allowed by Italian law (and ECHR case law) was introduced against her, and it was essentially the only evidence motivating the conviction.
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 29th January 2017, 06:47 AM   #60
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,895
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
Her argument is essentially that she didn't get a fair trial because they used illegal evidence against her. The echr is not going to decide that you have to institute a collateral prosecution in order not to have illegal evidence used against you. The application will be admissible (possibly a direct claim under Art 3, as opposed to a claim for Art.3's preclusionary rule, would be inadmissible, but I don't believe that she asserts such a claim).
Exactly.

No one posting here has shown how Knox filing a complaint against the police would lead to her illegally obtained testimony being excluded as evidence in the criminal calunnia against Lumumba case.

The claim under Article 3 may have special status with the ECHR because it is claimed to have occurred in the course of an interrogation. ECHR will interpret the mistreatment as having the aim of breaking the will of the person being interrogated, which is specifically a violation of ECHR case law (as well as Italian law).
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 29th January 2017, 08:27 AM   #61
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,192
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Exactly.

No one posting here has shown how Knox filing a complaint against the police would lead to her illegally obtained testimony being excluded as evidence in the criminal calunnia against Lumumba case.


The claim under Article 3 may have special status with the ECHR because it is claimed to have occurred in the course of an interrogation. ECHR will interpret the mistreatment as having the aim of breaking the will of the person being interrogated, which is specifically a violation of ECHR case law (as well as Italian law).
There's a style of posting from the guilter side of the fence which lobs a rhetorical grenade into the discussion, but the grenade always turns out to be a dud.

It's a style which simply asks a rhetorical question which sure sounds like it has substance, but never does. Like the question above which suggests there might be little merit to the ECHR application because, why then did not the defence lawyer file a domestic claim?

It would be great if instead of leaving the intended implications unstated, if such posters actually spelled it out. It's clear that one large reason this style never spells it out is because the grenade is actually a dud, and the point is to says something guilt-sounding without actually demonstrating anything.

I'm sure others can think of other examples, but Numbers above HAS shown that the claimed grenade is a dud.
__________________
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 29th January 2017, 08:55 AM   #62
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,895
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
There's a style of posting from the guilter side of the fence which lobs a rhetorical grenade into the discussion, but the grenade always turns out to be a dud.

It's a style which simply asks a rhetorical question which sure sounds like it has substance, but never does. Like the question above which suggests there might be little merit to the ECHR application because, why then did not the defence lawyer file a domestic claim?

It would be great if instead of leaving the intended implications unstated, if such posters actually spelled it out. It's clear that one large reason this style never spells it out is because the grenade is actually a dud, and the point is to says something guilt-sounding without actually demonstrating anything.

I'm sure others can think of other examples, but Numbers above HAS shown that the claimed grenade is a dud.
Yes. A few posters, whether they intend to or not, are posting misinformation. Perhaps they have misinterpreted some other information or not read enough of the relevant information.

For example, one poster wrote that, if I understand correctly, for an application to ECHR to be admissible "all remedies must be exhausted". This is not really what the ECHR case law states - depending what the word "all" means. ECHR case law states that ONE remedial path must be exhausted for admissibility. And it is up to the State to demonstrate that, if it claims the proper remedial path was not chosen, that the path it claims should have been used was a practical and effective one.

For example, if Knox had filed an "official" complaint about police mistreatment, how would that have effected a change in the use of her interrogation statements for the calunnia case, considering she had on Nov. 6 submitted a hand-written complaint of police mistreatment which further indicated that she was not sure of the verity of her statements from the interrogation, and on Nov. 7 submitted a second hand-written statement clearly stating that she had been at Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time and therefore could not have seen Lumumba at the cottage at that time? Both of those hand-written statements were in the files of the police, the prosecution, and the courts.

Knox testified in court in some detail about the interrogation, including her allegations of police mistreatment, and the response of the prosecutor was to file a charge against Knox of criminal calunnia against the police. Neither the court (Massei presiding) nor any prosecutor took any credible independent action to investigate or order an investigation based on her testimony, and her interrogation statements - the allegedly illegally obtained evidence of calunnia against Lumumba remained admissible not only before Massei, but also, despite appeals, before the Hellmann court and the Chieffi CSC panel. Thus, Knox had exhausted her remedies along one path that in theory should have been effective. That in practice her defense of police mistreatment was not even adequately discussed in the motivation reports shows that Italy - with intent - violated her defense rights under Italian law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Last edited by Numbers; 29th January 2017 at 08:58 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 09:13 AM   #63
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
There is also an argument that once Mignini had been sanctioned for preventing access to counsel of the suspects this should in itself triggered a review of the case.
He wasn't sanctioned for preventing access, he was disciplined for not putting the right to a lawyer in writing. Raff had his lawyer despite this administrative oversight.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP

Last edited by Vixen; 29th January 2017 at 09:44 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 09:17 AM   #64
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He wasn't sanctioned for preventing access, he was disciplined for not put the right to a lawyer in writing. Raff had his lawyer despite this administrative oversight.
"administrative oversight"
"budgetary constraints"
"that paperwork was submitted in a previous court"

And other fun phrases straight from Franz Kafka's pen to Mignini's mouth.
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 29th January 2017, 09:18 AM   #65
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,925
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Yes. A few posters, whether they intend to or not, are posting misinformation. Perhaps they have misinterpreted some other information or not read enough of the relevant information.

For example, one poster wrote that, if I understand correctly, for an application to ECHR to be admissible "all remedies must be exhausted". This is not really what the ECHR case law states - depending what the word "all" means. ECHR case law states that ONE remedial path must be exhausted for admissibility. And it is up to the State to demonstrate that, if it claims the proper remedial path was not chosen, that the path it claims should have been used was a practical and effective one.

For example, if Knox had filed an "official" complaint about police mistreatment, how would that have effected a change in the use of her interrogation statements for the calunnia case, considering she had on Nov. 6 submitted a hand-written complaint of police mistreatment which further indicated that she was not sure of the verity of her statements from the interrogation, and on Nov. 7 submitted a second hand-written statement clearly stating that she had been at Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time and therefore could not have seen Lumumba at the cottage at that time? Both of those hand-written statements were in the files of the police, the prosecution, and the courts.

Knox testified in court in some detail about the interrogation, including her allegations of police mistreatment, and the response of the prosecutor was to file a charge against Knox of criminal calunnia against the police. Neither the court (Massei presiding) nor any prosecutor took any credible independent action to investigate or order an investigation based on her testimony, and her interrogation statements - the allegedly illegally obtained evidence of calunnia against Lumumba remained admissible not only before Massei, but also, despite appeals, before the Hellmann court and the Chieffi CSC panel. Thus, Knox had exhausted her remedies along one path that in theory should have been effective. That in practice her defense of police mistreatment was not even adequately discussed in the motivation reports shows that Italy - with intent - violated her defense rights under Italian law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
There is a dishonest style of discussion these days which involves a reckless disregard for the truth. Not that it is false, just that the person who says it only cares that it supports their narrative. It creates a dynamic where the argument is carried out on their terms. Our new commander in chief is a regular practitioner.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 09:20 AM   #66
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,697
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am objectively neutral and not biased at all. From where I stand I can't see you have presented any valid case showing a mass conspiracy.
Then you surely agree that it is entirely possible that AK is innocent, right?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 29th January 2017, 09:24 AM   #67
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
or were these scouring marks from cleaning the knife?

The point is if the knife was the murder weapon it would have been covered in blood, (see the bloody imprint if you believe Crini), it is so thoroughly cleaned that not a trace of blood is left, in these circumstances we are expected to believe the DNA from the person who held the knife is left intact? The argument that Knox's DNA on the handle represented evidence she stabbed the victim is clearly fatuous. Steffanoni should have understood this and in interpreting the findings to the court made this clear. She did not. Indeed she even implied that one could interpret from the sites she sampled for DNA on the handle one could draw conclusions about the grip the knife was held in. This is an egregious example of bias and interpretation that has become fantasy. This is the scientist as magician. Something mysterious is done with a fancy machine in the laboratory then Steffanoni stands up and says (not an actual literal quote), my tests show Knox held the knife like this when she stabbed the victim. Clearly this sort of testimony has a big impact on courts. This sort of faux expert opinion is a common them in false convictions.

Fat cells and muscle cells are all big cells, in an earlier post I did the calculations, per volume blood contains more DNA than fat or muscle.

It is not just the DNA of Amanda that is at issue here. There is no way Mez' DNA got into the blade striation by 'everyday contact' with Amanda.

Let's put aside the conspiracy theory that the result were 'fixed' for a minute.

- Mez had never been in Raff's apartment where the knife was found.

- The blade of the knife was fully compatible with the wound.

- 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.

- Both Raff and Amanda were agitated when informed by their lawyers of this knife find.

- Raff wrote to his father saying, 'I pricked the back of Mez hand with a knife whilst I was cooking', not realising Amanda had already told police that Mez had never been there.

- there were indeed knife flick wounds on Mez' hands.

- Amanda had a breakdown when taken back to the cottage to look in the knife drawer.

- Vechhiotti & Conti who were openly sympathetic towards the defence refused to test one of the samples, obviously worried it might be that of Mez'.

- Vecchiotti & Conti falsely claimed that the aforementioned sample was 'a piece of rye starch'.

No, the knife on its own proves nothing. However, within the context of the thousand and one pieces of evidence, it is pretty damning.

It was not V&C's place to speculate, they should have just done what they were told.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 09:25 AM   #68
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am objectively neutral and not biased at all. From where I stand I can't see you have presented any valid case showing a mass conspiracy.
We don't believe in a massive conspiracy. Our belief is straight forward and extremely simple: the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Our support of this is the actual result: they were acquitted.

You believe in a massive conspiracy influencing almost every level of the Italian judiciary, and the scientists they appoint. Your evidence for this is nothing other than your own bias, you didn't like their verdict.

It's impressively bold of you to turn this around and claim we are the one that believes in a massive conspiracy. It is in fact exactly the opposite of the actual truth of the matter.
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 29th January 2017, 09:27 AM   #69
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Then you surely agree that it is entirely possible that AK is innocent, right?
Not entirely possible, now that I am aware of the evidence presented in court, but vanishingly remotely possible.

I would say there is a 0.05% chance she or Raff is innocent and perhaps a 0.5% chance it happened roughly as Rudy said it did, apart from his disassociating himself.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 09:31 AM   #70
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,192
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is a dishonest style of discussion these days which involves a reckless disregard for the truth. Not that it is false, just that the person who says it only cares that it supports their narrative. It creates a dynamic where the argument is carried out on their terms. Our new commander in chief is a regular practitioner.
This describes well the dispute on Wikipedia in 2010-11 on the MoMK page. There was a concerted effort among mods slightly up the food chain to assess the edits to the article in relation to the narrative it supported.

When Jimbo Wales finally intervened, the fake-wiki was born - IMV so that the narrative really could be controlled. Proof of this is that the fake-wiki is not user-edittable at all. It is more like a blog with no comments-section.
__________________
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 29th January 2017, 09:32 AM   #71
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
As mentioned above the ECHR is not bound by Italian law. It does not matter what term is used in the Italian system to classify different interviews. From the ECHR PoV they will take a pragmatic view if it sound like an interview of a suspect the it is an interview of a suspect, and the appropriate rights and protections apply. It is the responsibility of the Italian state to ensure their systems are ECHR compliant.

In the UK if a witness made an admission that would make them a suspect, the interview would be stopped, (except in certain exigent circumstances), the individual cautioned and arrangements made to continue the interview with benefit of counsel.

Mignini's actions were done deliberately to evade the necessity of providing Knox with counsel. Creating the spontaneous declaration. Again ECHR will be uninterested about whether this skirted within Italian law. The right to a lawyer is a positive right, if in doubt it should apply. It is not something to be avoided by the authorities. Mignini's intent was clear because he continued to deny access to counsel until immediately before the first court appearance. Something for which he was disciplined. This pattern of behaviour by Mignini is something that will make defence against Knox's claim for breach of right to a lawyer difficult for Italy to defend. It is hard to see how ECHR can do other than find in Knox's favour given that Mignini has been found to be in the wrong. The consequence in terms of the callunia conviction I cannot predict.
We should use the proportionality rule here. Take the Boston Bomber: were the police wrong to take him by brute force, or should they have been mindful of his right not to be assaulted by them in securing his capture?

A reasonable person would agree that where you have a horrific murder, then it calls for an emergency situation, where police have to think on their feet. It's not ideal but sometimes common sense is king.

I dare say Amanda will win part of her claim and get a small award, but it won't in any way cancel out her criminal conviction.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 09:33 AM   #72
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,697
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not entirely possible, now that I am aware of the evidence presented in court, but vanishingly remotely possible.

I would say there is a 0.05% chance she or Raff is innocent and perhaps a 0.5% chance it happened roughly as Rudy said it did, apart from his disassociating himself.
So you admit that you are not neutral and harbour bias. OK then.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 29th January 2017, 09:39 AM   #73
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Lol the police rushed to solve a puzzle they themselves created. By assuming the break-in was absolutely staged, they had constrained their investigation to inevitably lead to Amanda and only Amanda. It was incapable of concluding anything else.

They're like someone presented with the problem X + Y = 10, arbitrarily assuming Y is 4, and patting themselves on the back for figuring out what X must be.

The only reason they were ever able to solve this crime at all and find the guy who was actually walking around covered in Meredith's blood, is because a witness had come to them independently while they were busy chasing their own tail and said "uh, theres this guy i know you should probably look into..."

It wasn't just the observation of the staged burglary, it would have been the strange behaviour of the pair, who were at the scene with a mop, Amanda without a coat looking dishevelled, despite her claim of having a shower and groom. Amanda was on an adrenaline high, acting brashly and provocatively, swearing and upsetting people. She claimed amnesia, as did Raff. They had no alibi, once Raff withdrew his and told police Amanda told him to lie.

So you see, the police with long experience in dealing with crime scenes do tend to have good hunches, which derives from their trained observation skills.

The police can often know who the perps are. The challenge comes in proving it and that involves building up a case.

It was not just the kids who got the attention of the police, several other people came under close scrutiny, phone taps, surveillance, etc., etc.

The claim 'Mignini was out to get the kids' is a ridiculous one.


Police have better things to do with their time.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP

Last edited by Vixen; 29th January 2017 at 09:50 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 09:44 AM   #74
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We should use the proportionality rule here. Take the Boston Bomber: were the police wrong to take him by brute force, or should they have been mindful of his right not to be assaulted by them in securing his capture?

A reasonable person would agree that where you have a horrific murder, then it calls for an emergency situation, where police have to think on their feet. It's not ideal but sometimes common sense is king.

I dare say Amanda will win part of her claim and get a small award, but it won't in any way cancel out her criminal conviction.
There are specific procedures in place for interrogating people without a lawyer if there is a genuine public safety risk. The prosecutor and police knew they would never be able to claim this was one of those situations, which is why they never tried to make it look like it was, and instead tried very carefully to maneuver around the rules with these "spontaneous declarations" and whatnot. But of course, it didn't even fool their friendly neighborhood judges and was thrown out. But then they had the nerve to blame Amanda for the wrongful arrest(s) resulting from their illegal coercive interrogations and the ECHR might have some interesting things to say about that.
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 29th January 2017, 09:49 AM   #75
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So you admit that you are not neutral and harbour bias. OK then.
False logic. A court of law is technically cold and objective. That doesn't vanish when it comes to a verdict in favour of one side or another.

A scientist doesn't stop being objective as soon as he or she gets a result.
__________________
Galveston, oh, Galveston,
I still hear your seawaves crashin,
while I watch the cannons flashin'.
I clean my gun, and dream of Galveston ~ Glenn Campbell RIP
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 29th January 2017, 09:51 AM   #76
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,192
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It wasn't just the observation of the staged burglary, it would have been the strange behaviour of the pair, who were at the scene with a mop, Amanda without a coat looking dishevelled, despite her claim of having a shower and groom. Amanda was on an adrenaline high, acting brashly and and provocatively, swearing and upsetting people. She claimed amnesia, as did Raff. They had no alibi, once Raff withdrew his and told police Amanda told him to lie.

So you see, the police with long experience in dealing with crime scenes do tend to have good hunches, which derives from their trained observation skills.

The police can often know who the perps are. The challenge comes in proving it and that involves building up a case.

It was not just the kids who got the attention of the police, several other people came under close scrutiny, phone taps, surveillance, etc., etc.

The claim 'Mignini was out to get the kids' is a ridiculous one.


Police have better things to do with their time.
The highlighted part is the definition of a suspect-centric investigation. It leads to investigators trying to find proof for what the "already know."

It's a good thing this dynamic of, "she buckled and told us what we already knew," was not a dynamic in this investigation - which The Supreme Court called:
Originally Posted by Italian Supreme Court 2015
An objectively wavering process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result of clamorous failures, or investigative ‘amnesia’ and of culpable omissions of investigative activity. Had they been carried out these would, in all probability, have led to a picture if not of certainty, at least of tranquil reliability pointing either towards guilt or innocence of today’s accused. Such a scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes in itself already a first and eloquent signal of an investigation that was never capable of reaching a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.
__________________
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 29th January 2017, 09:54 AM   #77
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It wasn't just the observation of the staged burglary, it would have been the strange behaviour of the pair, who were at the scene with a mop, Amanda without a coat looking dishevelled, despite her claim of having a shower and groom. Amanda was on an adrenaline high, acting brashly and and provocatively, swearing and upsetting people. She claimed amnesia, as did Raff. They had no alibi, once Raff withdrew his and told police Amanda told him to lie.

So you see, the police with long experience in dealing with crime scenes do tend to have good hunches, which derives from their trained observation skills.

The police can often know who the perps are. The challenge comes in proving it and that involves building up a case.

It was not just the kids who got the attention of the police, several other people came under close scrutiny, phone taps, surveillance, etc., etc.

The claim 'Mignini was out to get the kids' is a ridiculous one.


Police have better things to do with their time.
So what you're saying is, if Amanda had been innocent and Rudy had really done the break-in, there's no possible way she would have kissed her boyfriend once while waiting in the cold, and being alone with her boyfriend all night at his apartment wouldn't have been mistaken for a lack of an alibi. The police are experts at discerning guilt and innocence from incredibly subtle differences in behavior following extremely stressful and unusual events.

This sounds very reasonable to me and not like rationalizations of a biased mind desperate to believe it's impossible the investigation could be sidetracked by mistakes.
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 29th January 2017, 09:59 AM   #78
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
False logic. A court of law is technically cold and objective. That doesn't vanish when it comes to a verdict in favour of one side or another.

A scientist doesn't stop being objective as soon as he or she gets a result.

A court of law ruled Amanda was completely innocent.

Two scientists appointed by this court concluded the prosecution's DNA analysis was flawed and not sufficient for making confident conclusions about the physical evidence.

You believe this court was bribed/influenced by the mafia/freemasons/whatever. You have not one shred of evidence to believe this other than it's a result you personally disagree with. This is exactly how we would expect a biased person to interpret results they disagreed with. Nothing distinguishes you from someone drowning in bias.
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 29th January 2017, 10:10 AM   #79
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,925
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We should use the proportionality rule here. Take the Boston Bomber: were the police wrong to take him by brute force, or should they have been mindful of his right not to be assaulted by them in securing his capture?

A reasonable person would agree that where you have a horrific murder, then it calls for an emergency situation, where police have to think on their feet. It's not ideal but sometimes common sense is king.

I dare say Amanda will win part of her claim and get a small award, but it won't in any way cancel out her criminal conviction.
Common sense is very often not good sense. It's also not a good excuse to violate the rights of citizens. Your analogy is poor. The police took the Boston Bomber by brute force because of safety reasons. The Boston Bomber had been in shootouts only hours before. It was assumed that he was armed and dangerous and not hesitant to kill as many people as possible.

There was nothing reasonable or responsible about Mignini's actions. He violated the law and his actions resulted in 2 innocent people being incarcerated for 4 years and almost a decade of litigation. He was reckless and dishonest. And he cost Italy millions of dollars and climbing, not to mention damaged the reputation of Italy, Perugia, himself and 2 innocents.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 10:16 AM   #80
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,925
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That's because Mez was a thoroughly nice person.
You don't know that any more than I know anything about Amanda.

We do know however that they were friendly towards each other and the kisses is evidence of that. So is it unreasonable to believe that they may have hugged each other?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
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 04:50 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.