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 29th January 2017, 10:26 AM   #81
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,540
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
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:
It's funny how the (remaining) PGP are in their own way now fully accepting the PIP view of the initial days of the investigation. The standard PGP line from ~2008-14 is Amanda was just a witness that wandered into the police interrogation room just to answer some basic questions, and spontaneously started spilling the beans and blaming the black man to the cops shock and surprise as they were busy stuffing her with tea and crumpets.

Now they've retreated all the way back to acknowledging that yeah, the interrogation probably did violate some of these so-called human rights western democracies promote for unknown reasons, and yeah she pretty much was suspect numero uno from the get go, but of course that was only fair, i mean everyone saw the pictures of her kissing her boyfriend...

We've almost come full circle here. We basically have Vixen admitting that Amanda Knox was guilty...all because of a cartwheel....
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, 10:29 AM   #82
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
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:
I take your point. However, police have to start at some point. Whilst profiling and suspect-centric 'what-if'fing are a necessary part of solving a crime, this type of information is not allowed in court and is merely part of a detective tool kit.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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, 10:32 AM   #83
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
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.
It's the whole package. Police do indeed observe behaviour, speech and appearance. They are trained to spot drunk drivers and druggies.

Border guards watch out for nervous individuals sweating buckets as they come through customs.

It's unfair but that's life.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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, 10:35 AM   #84
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
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.

Can you explain to me what is meant by 'investigative amnesia'?
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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, 10:39 AM   #85
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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.
You recall Donald Trump urged everybody to 'Boycott Italy' when he sent Amanda funds to help her legal case (which the ingrate didn't thank him for). Do you think Trump should have added Italy to his list of 'banned countries' for what it did to Amanda?
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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, 10:44 AM   #86
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
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.
No it did not rule Amanda was completely innocent. It ruled under 530,2 : 'insufficient evidence', or, 'not proven'.

The two scientists you mention had their labs forcibly closed, with rotting cadavers piled high in the corridors.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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, 10:45 AM   #87
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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?
If my grandmother wore trousers she could be my grandfather.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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, 10:47 AM   #88
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
It's funny how the (remaining) PGP are in their own way now fully accepting the PIP view of the initial days of the investigation. The standard PGP line from ~2008-14 is Amanda was just a witness that wandered into the police interrogation room just to answer some basic questions, and spontaneously started spilling the beans and blaming the black man to the cops shock and surprise as they were busy stuffing her with tea and crumpets.

Now they've retreated all the way back to acknowledging that yeah, the interrogation probably did violate some of these so-called human rights western democracies promote for unknown reasons, and yeah she pretty much was suspect numero uno from the get go, but of course that was only fair, i mean everyone saw the pictures of her kissing her boyfriend...

We've almost come full circle here. We basically have Vixen admitting that Amanda Knox was guilty...all because of a cartwheel....
You're a good satirist, I'll say that.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
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, 10:48 AM   #89
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,540
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No it did not rule Amanda was completely innocent. It ruled under 530,2 : 'insufficient evidence', or, 'not proven'.

The two scientists you mention had their labs forcibly closed, with rotting cadavers piled high in the corridors.
I was talking about Hellmann, of course. Have you linked to an independent expert refuting the C&V report yet? Even casual criticism (vs a full analysis) would be welcome.
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, 11:44 AM   #90
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
It's funny how the (remaining) PGP are in their own way now fully accepting the PIP view of the initial days of the investigation. The standard PGP line from ~2008-14 is Amanda was just a witness that wandered into the police interrogation room just to answer some basic questions, and spontaneously started spilling the beans and blaming the black man to the cops shock and surprise as they were busy stuffing her with tea and crumpets.

Now they've retreated all the way back to acknowledging that yeah, the interrogation probably did violate some of these so-called human rights western democracies promote for unknown reasons, and yeah she pretty much was suspect numero uno from the get go, but of course that was only fair, i mean everyone saw the pictures of her kissing her boyfriend...

We've almost come full circle here. We basically have Vixen admitting that Amanda Knox was guilty...all because of a cartwheel....
PGP contradict themselves regarding the interrogation. Vixen constantly boasts about all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele but then says Amanda was not a suspect when she went to the police station. Why was Amanda not regarded as a suspect when there was a mountain of evidence against her? Why was Amanda not presented with this mountain of evidence at the interrogation?
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 29th January 2017, 11:47 AM   #91
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,767
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If my grandmother wore trousers she could be my grandfather.
Didn't anyone teach you about the birds and the bees? I have a friend of mine that occasionally wears a dress. It doesn't make him a woman.
__________________
“ 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 29th January 2017, 11:49 AM   #92
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Can you explain to me what is meant by 'investigative amnesia'?
Things that were forgotten during the investigation?
__________________
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 29th January 2017, 11:50 AM   #93
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,767
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You recall Donald Trump urged everybody to 'Boycott Italy' when he sent Amanda funds to help her legal case (which the ingrate didn't thank him for). Do you think Trump should have added Italy to his list of 'banned countries' for what it did to Amanda?
I thought Trump was an idiot at the time and my opinion of him hasn't changed.
__________________
“ 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 29th January 2017, 12:43 PM   #94
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,058
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Can you explain to me what is meant by 'investigative amnesia'?
I do not know if it has a defined meaning within Italian law. To me, it means that at various points in their inept investigation they simply forgot that at other times they thought of some other item of evidence as critical, then dropped it as if they'd never constructed things the way they once had.

I could be wrong, but it seems akin to always moving the goalposts.
__________________
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, 12:47 PM   #95
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,887
There seems to remain considerable confusion among some posters about whether or not Knox was a suspect during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007.

In fact, the Gemelli CSC panel, in a motivation report dated April 1, 2008 and delivered April 28, 2008, reviewed Knox's precautionary detention and other matters, and ruled that she had been or became a suspect during that interrogation.

The Boninsegna motivation report mentions this:

Quote:
On this point, it is noted that declarations made in the first statement, but also in the second statement of 6-Nov-2007, in the police station, were judged as not being usable by the Court of Cassation (decision made after a defense request) because the girl {Knox} should have been heard with the guarantees reserved for persons under investigation from the beginning, and so not as a simple witness, given that substantially this was evident when considering the investigative developments as they evolved.
___

Here is the Gemelli CSC panel decision on the interrogation statements and Memoriale 1 (Google translated, with my attempts to clarify):

Quote:
2. With reference to the second defense complaint, the Court notes that the suspect's statements are characterized by a different regime of usability subjectively. In the event that they come from the person against whom there were already indications {clues or evidence} regarding the same offense or offenses linked to or connected with the one attributed to the third, the statements can not be used against himself, nor against the co-accused of the same crime (or one accused of related to or connected crimes).

The absolutely unusable regime referred to Art. 63, second paragraph, Code of Criminal Procedure, excludes cases where the declarant is called to respond in the same or in any proceedings {trial}, for a crime or crimes attributed to third parties, which have no connection with the trial for the case, for which he takes the status of witness.

In fact, while in the first case, by virtue of the intimate connection and interdependence between the fact itself and that of others is the need to also protect the right to silence of the declarant, in the second case, however, the extraneousness {or strange} position and indifference {or apathy} of the declarant with respect to the facts in the declaration makes it immune from any possible exploitation by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sec. A. 13 February 1997, Carpenelli).

In the light of those precepts, the statements made by Amanda Marie Knox at 1.45 on 6 November 2007, resulted in the minutes being suspended, and she was placed at the disposal of' the judicial Authority {prosecutor} proceeding, since {the statements included} evidence that had emerged against her, and therefore are usable only contra alios {against others}, while the "spontaneous declarations" of 5.45 hours can not be used against the suspect nor against other people accused of complicity in the same crime, as there were no defensive guarantees given to the person who had already formally assumed the role of a suspect.

On the contrary, the memorial in English from Knox and translated into Italian is fully usable, according to Art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, since it is a document coming from the investigated (suspect), and it is spontaneously written defensive material. The provision in question allows the attribution of evidential significance to the document not only as such, and for its representative content, but also by virtue of the special bond that ties it to the suspect (or accused), so heightening the scrutiny of admissibility that the judge is required to perform.
____

A copy of the Gemelli CSC panel decision is at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motiva...eal-documents/
Link to PDF "Cassazione confirming pre-trial detention: Knox"
___
Commentary:

It can be concluded that the many posts attempting to deny that Knox was a suspect during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6 were in vain. The Italian CSC itself considered her to be clearly a suspect then as demonstrated by the Gemelli CSC panel motivation report.

Boninsegna not only states that Knox was a suspect, but notes that her cell phone was taken (seized) by police during the interrogation, without a warrant, before Knox made her statement against Lumumba. Boninsegna thus apparently concludes that Knox was a suspect from the point of this seizure without a warrant:

Quote:
...the circumstance regarding Knox's telephone, which was taken by a colleague of Ficarra, examined and shown to her, in relation to a message received and exchanged with Patrick Lumumba, without a formal warrant for confiscation to be adopted when concerning a person already strongly suspected....
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.

In addition, VQA Giobbi testified at the first-instance trial (Massei presiding) that Knox and Sollecito were suspects before Nov. 5/6 and that he had ordered his subordinate officers to have Knox and Sollecito brought to the police station and their interrogation to start on Nov. 5.

The use of Memoriale 1 to bring the interrogation statements into evidence for the criminal calunnia charge is of interest. This maneuver by the CSC does not take into account the ECHR case law of Dayanan v. Turkey, which holds that a person in custody must have an attorney to plan their defense and other legal matters from the beginning of custody. Since Memoriale 1 and 2 are statements that on face value demolish the reliability of the interrogation statements, this CSC approach may be considered arbitrary - and thus blatantly unfair - by the ECHR.

Last edited by Numbers; 29th January 2017 at 01:02 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, 12:49 PM   #96
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,388
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.
Really? So why is it that you disagree with the acquittal? Did you stop being objective?
__________________
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, 01:07 PM   #97
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,058
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You recall Donald Trump urged everybody to 'Boycott Italy' when he sent Amanda funds to help her legal case (which the ingrate didn't thank him for). Do you think Trump should have added Italy to his list of 'banned countries' for what it did to Amanda?
Why does an objective commentator need to use the word "ingrate"?
__________________
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, 01:15 PM   #98
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 708
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Really? So why is it that you disagree with the acquittal? Did you stop being objective?
I believe what Vixen is trying say is that courts and scientists are cold and objective when they rule in favor of the prosecution. But when they rule in favor of the defendants then they were paid off by the mafia and/or freemasons.

I wish this were satire. But it is 100% what pgp actually believe.
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 29th January 2017, 01:26 PM   #99
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,767
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Why does an objective commentator need to use the word "ingrate"?
How does Vixen know if Amanda thanked or didn't thank Donald Trump for donating to her defense fund? The answer is she doesn't. I read a column recently where she talked about Trump and she basically said that while she was grateful for his donation, she did not support his election.

Does this make Amanda an ingrate? Hardly.
__________________
“ 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 29th January 2017, 01:59 PM   #100
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 564
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...about the same odds that,...sayyy, Leicester City were given to win the league last year?

Last edited by Mike1711; 29th January 2017 at 02:07 PM.
Mike1711 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, 02:53 PM   #101
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
So...about the same odds that,...sayyy, Leicester City were given to win the league last year?

I would say that any "argument" ascribing 99.95% probability of guilt to two people against whom not one single credible, reliable piece of evidence of guilt exists is............ somewhat lacking (and is *just perhaps* more likely to be founded in subjective prejudice and/or ignorance, rather than objective critical thinking)
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 29th January 2017, 03:01 PM   #102
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No it did not rule Amanda was completely innocent. It ruled under 530,2 : 'insufficient evidence', or, 'not proven'.

The two scientists you mention had their labs forcibly closed, with rotting cadavers piled high in the corridors.

You;re aware. aren;t you. that 530.2 covers every eventuality from zero evidence of guilt right up to evidence just falling short of proof BARD,

And you;re also aware. aren;t you. that it wasn;t Vecchiotti;s lab that was closed down = it was the autopsy mortuary at La Sapienza,

And yet you continue to peddle these falsehoods \complete with deliberately=emotive descriptors such as ""forcibly"" and ""rotting""/,

\You;re also aware. incidentally. that somebody found not=guilty in a criminal trial process maintains the presumption of innocence in respect of that criminal act = exactly the same presumption of innocence that you or I enjoy for the same criminal act,/
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 29th January 2017, 03:07 PM   #103
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,767
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
So...about the same odds that,...sayyy, Leicester City were given to win the league last year?
Didn't they win?
__________________
“ 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 29th January 2017, 03:12 PM   #104
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
ETA: I also have a quibble with this. Your statement seems to suggest that the ECHR will provide prior to judging the merits a separate publication declaring admissibility. From my reading, it seems that their practice is to discuss the admissibility and merits in one judgment document. And each claim is examined on its own for admissibility, although, again, I believe the claims as listed in the Knox v. Italy Communication to Italy will all be admissible.

Yes, I didn't mean a communication. What I meant was strictly a declaration. If the Chamber declares the application (or parts of it) inadmissible, then obviously it will issue a communication to the applicant (and a public communication) to that effect. But if the Chamber declares some or all of the application admissible, it will, I imagine, issue a communication to the effect that it is now examining the merits of the application - which will, by definition, mean that it has deemed the application (or part of it) admissible.

What that will mean in Knox's case, therefore (IMO) is this: there will at some point be a communication from the ECHR. That communication will say one of three things:

1) The Chamber, having considered the application, has declared the entire application inadmissible. That will be a final decision.

2) The Chamber has declared parts a,b,c of the application inadmissible (and that will, again, be a final decision), and is considering the merits of parts x,y,z of the application (which will, by definition, mean that the Chamber has deemed those parts admissible).

3) The Chamber is now considering the merits of the whole application (which will, by definition, mean that the Chamber has deemed the entire application admissible).

I believe that - on the basis of precedent and the understanding that the bulk of the admissibility screening has already taken place by the legal team prior to the application being passed to the Chamber - Option (3) is the most likely of these three to occur, but there's a small chance that Option (2) will occur, and there's an extremely low chance that Option (1) will occur.
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 29th January 2017, 03:16 PM   #105
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,887
Another quote from the Boninsegna court motivation report, acquitting Knox of criminal calunnia against the police and Mignini:

Quote:
All these reported events {of police officers hugging Knox or holding her hand during the interrogation and, possibly, of the interpreter speaking of her own traumatic amnesia and urging Knox to remember while holding or touching Knox's shoulder} do not appear, very understandably, this also being evidence that they were reckoned as anomalous, in any written report. However, they have been presented, and even stressed multiple times, by the witnesses {that is, the police including the police interpreters} heard, with the manifest aim of pointing out at the fair, indeed nice, treatment reserved for Knox. In this way the witnesses and the civil parties have, probably, meant to introduce an element of support to their case, disproving at the same time the defendant’s accusations against them. But they probably did not realise, and this too is likewise characteristic, that in such a professional context, the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation.

Edited by Agatha:  Trimmed for rule 4. Please do not copypaste large amounts of material from elsewhere, but provide a link and a short extract (one or two short paragraphs/one long paragraph)

____
Commentary:

One point of interest in this MR include its reference to articles of th Italian Constitution, suggesting rather than explicitly stating - to my reading - that those were violated, but clearly stating that defense rights were not respected.

The use of untoward and possibly hypocritical displays of affection toward a person who is under interrogation - and who also reported being yelled at, called a liar, threatened with imprisonment, and even hit - is rather unique in my admittedly limited reading of such cases in the ECHR records.

Thus, this case may produce a relatively unusual ECHR judgment of violations of Convention Articles 3 and 8 in an interrogation that results a statement, obtained without a lawyer or independent interpreter, unfairly used in an unfair trial with consequent conviction, leading to a violation of Article 6.

Last edited by Agatha; 30th January 2017 at 06:50 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, 03:16 PM   #106
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Didn't they win?

Yep - that's his point (that even events that are ascribed very low probability of occurring sometimes DO occur - AKA the Black Swan phenomenon).

But that presupposes, of course, that Vixen's probabilities in respect of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito have been calculated from anything even remotely approaching an objective, scientific, statistically-robust analysis of the available evidence. In reality, any claim that there's a 99.95% probability that Knox and Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder is so horrifically flawed that it's not even worthy of being taken seriously.
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 29th January 2017, 03:18 PM   #107
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Another quote from the Boninsegna court motivation report, acquitting Knox of criminal calunnia against the police and Mignini:


____
Commentary:

One point of interest in this MR include its reference to articles of th Italian Constitution, suggesting rather than explicitly stating - to my reading - that those were violated, but clearly stating that defense rights were not respected.

The use of untoward and possibly hypocritical displays of affection toward a person who is under interrogation - and who also reported being yelled at, called a liar, threatened with imprisonment, and even hit - is rather unique in my admittedly limited reading of such cases in the ECHR records.

Thus, this case may produce a relatively unusual ECHR judgment of violations of Convention Articles 3 and 8 in an interrogation that results a statement, obtained without a lawyer or independent interpreter, unfairly used in an unfair trial with consequent conviction, leading to a violation of Article 6.

Yes to all of this - and it may be a significant factor as to why the application was assigned to a Chamber rather than Committee.


ETA: And Boninsegna is here apparently pointing out that the police actually tried to use the "look how nice we were to her in this way and that way!" argument to try to refute Knox's accusations that they had mistreated her in plenty of other ways (whether physical, psychological or legal). Indeed, Boninsegna points to one particular point which the police thought was "in their favour" - the intervention of interpreter Donnino to try to convince Knox that she might be suffering from traumatic amnesia, by way of an anecdote about her (Donnino's) experience when she broke her ankle - which was actually an explicitly unlawful breach!! As Boninsegna states: all that was important in that interrogation was that Knox was afforded her full and proper rights under the law at all times, and it's perfectly clear to Boninsegna that this wasn't the case.

(By the way, it's worth noting that Boninsegna didn't conclude that the police "treated Knox too kindly" or any such crap - and her use of the (translated) term "sugarcoated" is clearly a rather cynical reference to the way the police tried to convince Boninsegna so hugely kindly and generously etc (to "sugarcoat" something means to artificially try to make something seem nicer than it actually is.....))

Last edited by LondonJohn; 29th January 2017 at 04:18 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 03:25 PM   #108
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,887
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes, I didn't mean a communication. What I meant was strictly a declaration. If the Chamber declares the application (or parts of it) inadmissible, then obviously it will issue a communication to the applicant (and a public communication) to that effect. But if the Chamber declares some or all of the application admissible, it will, I imagine, issue a communication to the effect that it is now examining the merits of the application - which will, by definition, mean that it has deemed the application (or part of it) admissible.

What that will mean in Knox's case, therefore (IMO) is this: there will at some point be a communication from the ECHR. That communication will say one of three things:

1) The Chamber, having considered the application, has declared the entire application inadmissible. That will be a final decision.

2) The Chamber has declared parts a,b,c of the application inadmissible (and that will, again, be a final decision), and is considering the merits of parts x,y,z of the application (which will, by definition, mean that the Chamber has deemed those parts admissible).

3) The Chamber is now considering the merits of the whole application (which will, by definition, mean that the Chamber has deemed the entire application admissible).

I believe that - on the basis of precedent and the understanding that the bulk of the admissibility screening has already taken place by the legal team prior to the application being passed to the Chamber - Option (3) is the most likely of these three to occur, but there's a small chance that Option (2) will occur, and there's an extremely low chance that Option (1) will occur.
Yes, if the full application is ruled inadmissible, a document stating that - called by ECHR a "decision" in contrast to a "judgment" or "communication" will be entered into the HUDOC website.

If there were only a partial finding of inadmissibility, there may be no separate decision published, and the decisions on the inadmissible parts will it that case be published on HUDOC along with the merits in the judgment in a single document.

There are, apparently, a relatively few cases where the inadmissible and admissible parts are documented separately in a decision and a judgment, respectively. These may be cases of some complexity where the time to reach judgment on merits of the admissible parts with takes much longer than the time to reach the decision on the inadmissible parts.
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, 03:42 PM   #109
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
On the first highlighted part:
You are wrong, Dottore Mignini was sanctioned for preventing access to a lawyer.
Dottore Mignini's defense is that Profazio (who signed these documents must have misunderstood him.
Quote:
Il P.M. ha disposto regime di isolamento e di divieto di colloquio tra gli stessi ed i loro legali.
On the second highlighted part, it looks like you are refering to that infamous diary entry where "Raff" writes about having a lawyer (Tedeschi) at the Matteini hearing (but not before).
Interesting thing about this one is that we only know about this "diary entry" because it was published by a newspaper...
Fact is, that neither Lumumba (blame Knox for that), Knox, nor Sollecito had contact to legal aid until just minutes before the Matteini hearing, as it was ordered by Dottore Mignini...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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, 04:03 PM   #110
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
On the first highlighted part:
You are wrong, Dottore Mignini was sanctioned for preventing access to a lawyer.
Dottore Mignini's defense is that Profazio (who signed these documents must have misunderstood him.

On the second highlighted part, it looks like you are refering to that infamous diary entry where "Raff" writes about having a lawyer (Tedeschi) at the Matteini hearing (but not before).
Interesting thing about this one is that we only know about this "diary entry" because it was published by a newspaper...
Fact is, that neither Lumumba (blame Knox for that), Knox, nor Sollecito had contact to legal aid until just minutes before the Matteini hearing, as it was ordered by Dottore Mignini...

Yes. It's both amazing and saddening to find pro-guilt commentators still trying to pretend that Mignini's censure was about nothing more than an administrative oversight which had no real-world adverse effects.

The facts of the matter are these: once Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were arrested and in custody, Mignini cunningly employed a section of the code which is clearly, and explicitly, reserved for extraordinary circumstances - for example, in cases of suspected terrorism or organised crime, where giving arrested suspects access to lawyers might reasonably result in things such as intimidation of witnesses, other obstructions of justice, or even real danger to others - to deny the three detainees any access to legal counsel.

Once Mignini had invoked this section of the code, he was required in law to submit a detailed written application/explanation to the courts, showing the precise grounds upon which he felt it necessary to deny access to counsel. It almost goes without saying that Mignini could not, in fact, have composed such a document in good faith - since in fact there were no extraordinary circumstances at play here, and thus there was no reasonable set of reasons Mignini could have given which would have stood up to any proper scrutiny.

So what did Mignini do? Simples!! He just "forgot" to submit the written document. He instead fell back onto his (probably tried and trusted in front of the tame, compliant judges he knew well) method along the lines of "Oh yes, well my reasons for invoking the "no access to counsel" rule are solid, and I'm sure the document is here somewhere, or I've got someone else to draw it up .... anyway, don't worry about it, take my word for it, my reasons are sound and the required documentation will turn up sooner or later....".

Of course Matteini should have excoriated Mignini in that very first arraignment hearing, and should then have adjourned the whole case until either a) Mignini was able to produce the required documentation, which Matteini would then have had to read and judge whether Mignini's reasoning was acceptable, or b) Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were able to have full consultations with their lawyers. But Matteini (as Mignini very probably knew all too well) seemingly just rolled over compliantly and let Mignini have his way.
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 29th January 2017, 04:06 PM   #111
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,767
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yep - that's his point (that even events that are ascribed very low probability of occurring sometimes DO occur - AKA the Black Swan phenomenon).

But that presupposes, of course, that Vixen's probabilities in respect of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito have been calculated from anything even remotely approaching an objective, scientific, statistically-robust analysis of the available evidence. In reality, any claim that there's a 99.95% probability that Knox and Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder is so horrifically flawed that it's not even worthy of being taken seriously.
I knew.

In the US the standard to determine guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt and in a civil case or tort the standard is the preponderance of evidence. In my view neither standard was met.

There was only one piece of evidence that was presented that gave me pause as to whether they weren't innocent and that was the bra clasp as there is little reason to find Raffaele's DNA there. But there is no motive for either Amanda or Raffaele to kill Meredith, there is no connection to Rudy. Nothing else points to the couple and EVERYTHING else points to Rudy from his previous break-ins to his foot prints to his palm print to his DNA. I thought the idea that the cooking knife was involved was ridiculous. There simply wasn't a reason to transport it from the cottage and back. The witnesses were ridiculous and not even close to credible.

So I feel as confident that Knox and Sollecito are innocent as I do that Leicester City won the EPL last year.
__________________
“ 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 29th January 2017, 04:11 PM   #112
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,887
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes to all of this - and it may be a significant factor as to why the application was assigned to a Chamber rather than Committee.
Yes. Also, there are differences in whether a Committee reviews a case based on the respondent State as well as what claims are in the application.

I found only 41 Committee judgments involving Italy as respondent in HUDOC; most appeared to involve Article 6 claims but in civil trials. In contrast, there were 324 Committee decisions, some were strike outs and others inadmissibility decisions. Strike outs could be, for example, due to friendly settlements or failure of an applicant to respond to an ECHR question (possible abandonment of the application).
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, 04:45 PM   #113
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I knew.

In the US the standard to determine guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt and in a civil case or tort the standard is the preponderance of evidence. In my view neither standard was met.

There was only one piece of evidence that was presented that gave me pause as to whether they weren't innocent and that was the bra clasp as there is little reason to find Raffaele's DNA there. But there is no motive for either Amanda or Raffaele to kill Meredith, there is no connection to Rudy. Nothing else points to the couple and EVERYTHING else points to Rudy from his previous break-ins to his foot prints to his palm print to his DNA. I thought the idea that the cooking knife was involved was ridiculous. There simply wasn't a reason to transport it from the cottage and back. The witnesses were ridiculous and not even close to credible.

So I feel as confident that Knox and Sollecito are innocent as I do that Leicester City won the EPL last year.

This is the weird thing for me. When I first got interested in this case (in early 2010), I thought there were a number of pieces of evidence which, in effect, were slam-dunk pieces of evidence for guilt - and that in fact Knox and Sollecito could probably have been safely convicted of murder on these few key pieces of evidence alone. They were these: the Sollecito DNA on the Kercher bra clasp; the Kercher DNA on the Sollecito kitchen knife; the Quintavalle testimony about seeing Knox in his shop the early-morning after the murder; the apparently-settled fact that Sollecito had phoned the Carabinieri, and Knox had phoned her mother, only AFTER the postal police had arrived, and neither had even mentioned the presence of the postal police in their calls.

After all, I couldn't think of any "innocent" reason how/why Sollecito's DNA could have got onto Kercher's bra clasp; I likewise couldn't think of any "innocent" reason why Kercher's DNA could have got onto Sollecito's kitchen knife; I couldn't see how/why an innocent Knox would have needed to lie about going to Quintavalle's shop (while conversely I could easily see how/why a guilty Knox would have wanted to lie about it); and I couldn't see any reason why an innocent Knox/Sollecito would have placed those calls once the postal police had arrived, nor why they would not have mentioned within those calls the presence of the postal police.

And, on top of all this, I also knew at this point that the Massei court had in effect accepted all of these pieces of evidence as credible and reliable (and many, many others besides). I therefore reasoned that the evidence had been properly tested by a competent court. And I found it wholly incompatible with the innocence of Knox and Sollecito - and wholly indicative of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But then, of course, I learned more about the case. Much more. And I learned that in fact every single one of the things listed above had fundamental problems with its reliability and credibility. I discovered that the Massei court had made massive errors in judgement (and, by extension, in law) in the way it had assessed pretty much every piece of allegedly-inculpatory evidence - and had, by contrast, made opposing errors of judgement in the way it treated defence evidence and argument. And the rest, as they say, is history........

Funnily enough, the actual reason why I delved into the online debate on this case in the first place was entirely to do with the police interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on 5th/6th November. At the beginning, I had no qualms about the safety of the murder convictions. But from what I knew about the interrogations at that point (still relatively little, but still enough), it seemed very probable to me that Knox (a Knox whom I believed at that point to be guilty of murder, remember) had been unlawfully coerced into her false accusation of Lumumba. I wanted to see whether there was any online discussion - in what I assumed would be an environment of prevailing belief in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito for the Kercher murder - which was even considering/discussing the possibility of Knox having been unlawfully coerced in that 5th/6th Nov interrogation. I was genuinely surprised to see that, in the first forum I landed upon, there was active opposition to the very notion that Knox might be guilty of murdering Kercher but not guilty of criminal slander against Lumumba (on the grounds that she'd been unlawfully coerced). It became clear to me that the rule was: you believe Knox and Sollecito were guilty of anything and everything, or you got shown the door. And, again, the rest - for me - was history.........
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 29th January 2017, 05:03 PM   #114
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,767
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
This is the weird thing for me. When I first got interested in this case (in early 2010), I thought there were a number of pieces of evidence which, in effect, were slam-dunk pieces of evidence for guilt - and that in fact Knox and Sollecito could probably have been safely convicted of murder on these few key pieces of evidence alone. They were these: the Sollecito DNA on the Kercher bra clasp; the Kercher DNA on the Sollecito kitchen knife; the Quintavalle testimony about seeing Knox in his shop the early-morning after the murder; the apparently-settled fact that Sollecito had phoned the Carabinieri, and Knox had phoned her mother, only AFTER the postal police had arrived, and neither had even mentioned the presence of the postal police in their calls.

After all, I couldn't think of any "innocent" reason how/why Sollecito's DNA could have got onto Kercher's bra clasp; I likewise couldn't think of any "innocent" reason why Kercher's DNA could have got onto Sollecito's kitchen knife; I couldn't see how/why an innocent Knox would have needed to lie about going to Quintavalle's shop (while conversely I could easily see how/why a guilty Knox would have wanted to lie about it); and I couldn't see any reason why an innocent Knox/Sollecito would have placed those calls once the postal police had arrived, nor why they would not have mentioned within those calls the presence of the postal police.

And, on top of all this, I also knew at this point that the Massei court had in effect accepted all of these pieces of evidence as credible and reliable (and many, many others besides). I therefore reasoned that the evidence had been properly tested by a competent court. And I found it wholly incompatible with the innocence of Knox and Sollecito - and wholly indicative of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But then, of course, I learned more about the case. Much more. And I learned that in fact every single one of the things listed above had fundamental problems with its reliability and credibility. I discovered that the Massei court had made massive errors in judgement (and, by extension, in law) in the way it had assessed pretty much every piece of allegedly-inculpatory evidence - and had, by contrast, made opposing errors of judgement in the way it treated defence evidence and argument. And the rest, as they say, is history........

Funnily enough, the actual reason why I delved into the online debate on this case in the first place was entirely to do with the police interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on 5th/6th November. At the beginning, I had no qualms about the safety of the murder convictions. But from what I knew about the interrogations at that point (still relatively little, but still enough), it seemed very probable to me that Knox (a Knox whom I believed at that point to be guilty of murder, remember) had been unlawfully coerced into her false accusation of Lumumba. I wanted to see whether there was any online discussion - in what I assumed would be an environment of prevailing belief in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito for the Kercher murder - which was even considering/discussing the possibility of Knox having been unlawfully coerced in that 5th/6th Nov interrogation. I was genuinely surprised to see that, in the first forum I landed upon, there was active opposition to the very notion that Knox might be guilty of murdering Kercher but not guilty of criminal slander against Lumumba (on the grounds that she'd been unlawfully coerced). It became clear to me that the rule was: you believe Knox and Sollecito were guilty of anything and everything, or you got shown the door. And, again, the rest - for me - was history.........
I originally thought they were guilty as well.

But mostly because I knew little about the facts or the evidence of the case. What I never ever believed were the reasons that I heard. Satanic rituals or orgies gone wrong, that was ridiculous. I can't say I ever considered Quintavalle as credible. Simply too much time had passed for him to come forward.to make it reliable. Not that he couldn't have been telling the truth. Just that I refused to even consider it. It would be too prejudicial. And Curatolo was just as problematic, even more so. As i examined each and every aspect of the proscution's case it went from a slam-dunk to iffy to downright absurd.

The mountain of evidence was really a house of cards.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 29th January 2017 at 05:16 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 29th January 2017, 05:45 PM   #115
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes. It's both amazing and saddening to find pro-guilt commentators still trying to pretend that Mignini's censure was about nothing more than an administrative oversight which had no real-world adverse effects.

The facts of the matter are these: once Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were arrested and in custody, Mignini cunningly employed a section of the code which is clearly, and explicitly, reserved for extraordinary circumstances - for example, in cases of suspected terrorism or organised crime, where giving arrested suspects access to lawyers might reasonably result in things such as intimidation of witnesses, other obstructions of justice, or even real danger to others - to deny the three detainees any access to legal counsel.

Once Mignini had invoked this section of the code, he was required in law to submit a detailed written application/explanation to the courts, showing the precise grounds upon which he felt it necessary to deny access to counsel. It almost goes without saying that Mignini could not, in fact, have composed such a document in good faith - since in fact there were no extraordinary circumstances at play here, and thus there was no reasonable set of reasons Mignini could have given which would have stood up to any proper scrutiny.

So what did Mignini do? Simples!! He just "forgot" to submit the written document. He instead fell back onto his (probably tried and trusted in front of the tame, compliant judges he knew well) method along the lines of "Oh yes, well my reasons for invoking the "no access to counsel" rule are solid, and I'm sure the document is here somewhere, or I've got someone else to draw it up .... anyway, don't worry about it, take my word for it, my reasons are sound and the required documentation will turn up sooner or later....".

Of course Matteini should have excoriated Mignini in that very first arraignment hearing, and should then have adjourned the whole case until either a) Mignini was able to produce the required documentation, which Matteini would then have had to read and judge whether Mignini's reasoning was acceptable, or b) Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were able to have full consultations with their lawyers. But Matteini (as Mignini very probably knew all too well) seemingly just rolled over compliantly and let Mignini have his way.
That is just WOW!! Any prosecutor who behaves like that is showing a truly amazing level of contempt for the court. Yes Mignini should have had sanctions against him for such contemptuous behavior.

And if anything the Judge who allowed him to get away with this is even worst. Why is this person a judge? At the absolute minimum the Judge should have ordered him to produce the proper documentation by a fixed date along with telling Mignini in no uncertain terms he would tolerate no further shenanigans from him.

Instead the Judge goes along with this idiocy.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2017, 06:04 PM   #116
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,719
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I originally thought they were guilty as well.

But mostly because I knew little about the facts or the evidence of the case. What I never ever believed were the reasons that I heard. Satanic rituals or orgies gone wrong, that was ridiculous. I can't say I ever considered Quintavalle as credible. Simply too much time had passed for him to come forward.to make it reliable. Not that he couldn't have been telling the truth. Just that I refused to even consider it. It would be too prejudicial. And Curatolo was just as problematic, even more so. As i examined each and every aspect of the proscution's case it went from a slam-dunk to iffy to downright absurd.

The mountain of evidence was really a house of cards.
I'm another who assumed Knox and Sollecito were guilty from reading the media reports from 2008. How could they not be when they had Kercher's DNA on the murder weapon and Sollecito's DNA on her bra? Add Sollecito's bloody footprint on the mat, Knox's and Kercher's blood mixed in the bathroom, a bleach clean-up with Knox having been at the local store on Nov 2 with a bleach receipt as proof, and it was a no-brainer. Until, of course, I started finding out more of the facts. Those facts led me to change my mind. Sadly, some people simply cannot admit they were wrong and cling to their first opinion of guilt despite new information. Their egos simply do not allow for them to have been duped.
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 29th January 2017, 06:15 PM   #117
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,234
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
But was incompatible with all the other wounds. Only one wound could possibly have been inflicted by this knife, all wounds could have been inflicted with a smaller blade.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
- 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.
This is an interesting comment by Vixen characteristic of much of his posting. This is clearly at odds with the testimony presented in court. So one can infer Vixen has never read the original sources, but relies on second hand information.
The use of cellophane is interesting - why does Vixen insert this false detail? Does the use of a technical term make his post sound more authoritative to the ignorant? If the knife had been inserted into a cellophane envelope this would have been an error. cellophane is an occlusive material if used there would be a danger that biological material would be subject to damp and consequent mould and bacterial decomposition, such as happened to the bra hook rendering it subsequently unsuitable for further testing and the towels from the crime scene (suggesting a certain lack of competency by the police forensic scientists). So Vixen is ignorant enough of good practice that she invents a detail that suggests the police were incompetent! Instead the officer said he put in an envelope from his desk presumably a paper envelope as would be correct as paper is permeable and allows the sample to dry. But not a proper forensic evidence bag. One might question why the police searched suspects home and had brought no proper evidence bags. One might ask whether this office envelope brought from the police station might have been exposed to any persons or items that had been present at the crime scene. Contaminating DNA from the outer surface of the envelope might be transferred to the knife.

Vixen the comments that the knife was put in to an envelope then into a desk diary box. Implying that knife and envelope were double bagged. Skipping over the fact the knife was removed from the envelope in the police station and inspected. There seems to be no good reason for this to have been done. As Vixen says the knife was then placed in the container that a calendar had been in. Presumably a more rigid box thought to be better for transporting of the knife. What we do not know is who or what had been through the office where the knife was removed from its envelope and repackaged. Was it routine practice to repackage evidence in this office? It certainly would have provided opportunity to put some of the victim's DNA on the knife, either accidentally or deliberately. Such a breach in the chain of evidence especially when subject to LCN DNA testing would have had the evidence excluded in the UK or US. Special rules apply to handling evidence which is planned for LCN DNA testing. If someone who had been at the murder scene had handled the box this may have been enough to transfer DNA to the outside of the box and then on to the knife as it was put into the box. An error here - good forensic practice - is to test the inside of the evidence bag as biological material may fall off in transit. Quite apart from preventing contamination taking the knife out of the original envelope may have lost biological evidence.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
- Both Raff and Amanda were agitated when informed by their lawyers of this knife find.
Which they might do if they were innocent and had found out the police were making up evidence.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
- 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.
But Sollecito does not say that this happened at his flat but at the girls. So again you elide two statements to imply some conflict where none is present.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
- there were indeed knife flick wounds on Mez' hands.
These are what the forensic pathologists described as defensive wounds and were ruled as such by the courts, why do you describe them as flick wounds? No where in the court testimony is this term used. This seems to be part of your private fantasy that does not match the objective reality of the case.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
- Amanda had a breakdown when taken back to the cottage to look in the knife drawer.
Knox is thought to be guilty because she shows too little emotion or too much emotion. This is goldilocks, clearly if your flatmate has been murdered it is unnatural to be upset to be asked to look at knives. It always seemed curious that the knives in the flat were not tested because they were clean but Sollecito's knife was!

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
- Vechhiotti & Conti who were openly sympathetic towards the defence refused to test one of the samples, obviously worried it might be that of Mez'.
No they did not have the technology to do LCN testing. They could not do the test. They declined because they were unable to do the test. They preserved the sample so it could be subsequently tested in a laboratory equipped to do so. They clearly would have been acting outside of their authority to send it away or do a test they did not have the facilities to do so. They did the least harmful thing, kept the sample intact for testing elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
- Vecchiotti & Conti falsely claimed that the aforementioned sample was 'a piece of rye starch'.
No this is wrong. Steffanoni claimed to have observed human tissue, when reinspected by Vecchiotti this was grains of starch. This was microscope examination of the knife not any testing of samples.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

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.
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, 06:34 PM   #118
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm another who assumed Knox and Sollecito were guilty from reading the media reports from 2008. How could they not be when they had Kercher's DNA on the murder weapon and Sollecito's DNA on her bra? Add Sollecito's bloody footprint on the mat, Knox's and Kercher's blood mixed in the bathroom, a bleach clean-up with Knox having been at the local store on Nov 2 with a bleach receipt as proof, and it was a no-brainer. Until, of course, I started finding out more of the facts. Those facts led me to change my mind. Sadly, some people simply cannot admit they were wrong and cling to their first opinion of guilt despite new information. Their egos simply do not allow for them to have been duped.

Ah yes, I should have added in Sollecito's bloody partial footprint on the bath mat (which, at that time, as far as I was concerned, was definitively established as Sollecito's print and excluded as Guede's print) as the other key factor in my reasoning for guilt. After all, Sollecito was consistent in his police statements that, while he'd been inside the cottage after the murder had occurred, he'd been wearing shoes at all times (and, given that his version of events had him only visiting the cottage at least 12 hours after the murder had occurred, this time elapse in itself would make it very unlikely that he could have created such a bloody partial print).

I therefore concluded that this bloody print proved three things: 1) Sollecito must have been barefoot in the cottage at or soon after the time of the murder; 2) Sollecito must therefore have been lying when he claimed his only post-murder presence in the cottage was the following lunchtime, when he'd been wearing shoes throughout; and 3) therefore, Sollecito must have been a participant in the murder (otherwise why would that bloody print exist, and why would Sollecito have found it neccesary to lie).

I remember now that I've actually written online before (on these threads IIRC) that the bath mat partial print - had it been reliably proven to have belonged to Sollecito - would probably have been sufficient to convict Sollecito in and of itself (and would have gone a very long way to convicting Knox too), given its inherent contradiction with the claims of Knox and Sollecito as to their whereabouts and its clear link to the immediate aftermath of the murder. As it turned out, of course, the "analysis" done by the police "experts" and swallowed wholesale by the incompetent convicting courts was pure pseudoscience conducted by people who didn't know what they were doing. The extremely significant measurement discrepancies/difficulties presented by the fact that a) the bathmat was thickly tufted, and tufted to a variety of depths, b) the print was made in a saturated blood/water solution, meaning that significant wicking of the liquid would have taken place as the print was deposited, c) the weight of the footfall of the person making the print was utterly unknown (a doubly-significant factor given the heavy tufting: a heavy footfall would have compressed and distorted the tufts much more than a light footfall), and d) all comparisons were being made with perfect reference prints obtained using viscous printer's ink onto a hard, flat, non-spreadable surface.... all of these meant that the matches made (in a classic confirmation-biassed suspect-centric manner, incidentally) by the police "experts" were a complete and utter load of rubbish.

The print almost certainly belonged to Guede. He went (by his own admission, no less) to the small bathroom to wash blood off himself and his clothes. He almost certainly removed his shoes and socks, stepped into the shower, and used the hand-held shower head to wash the blood off his trousers (pants) and sweater. This blood washed down and pooled in the pan of the shower. Guede stepped out of the shower, with this dilute blood/water mix on his foot. He placed his foot onto the mat, creating the partial print. He would then have showered down the shower cubicle and pan itself while standing outside it, so as to remove visible blood traces/pools.
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 29th January 2017, 06:47 PM   #119
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,719
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No it did not rule Amanda was completely innocent. It ruled under 530,2 : 'insufficient evidence', or, 'not proven'.

The two scientists you mention had their labs forcibly closed, with rotting cadavers piled high in the corridors.
Sigh. Are you back to peddling that lie yet again? That lie was shot down almost a year ago in ISF. C and V's labs were not shut down, much less "forcibly". What was closed down was the mortuary at U of Sapienza. Neither C nor V worked in the mortuary nor were their labs there. Nor were there "rotting cadavers piled high in the corridors". There were unclaimed preserved bodies in the corridors.
http://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cron...c7c38977.shtml


Why do you have to resort, time and again, to lies that have been disproven? One would think it's due to an inability to accept the truth when it doesn't support your bias. Oh, wait....you aren't biased.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 29th January 2017 at 06:57 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th January 2017, 05:44 AM   #120
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,785
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
But was incompatible with all the other wounds. Only one wound could possibly have been inflicted by this knife, all wounds could have been inflicted with a smaller blade.



This is an interesting comment by Vixen characteristic of much of his posting. This is clearly at odds with the testimony presented in court. So one can infer Vixen has never read the original sources, but relies on second hand information.
The use of cellophane is interesting - why does Vixen insert this false detail? Does the use of a technical term make his post sound more authoritative to the ignorant? If the knife had been inserted into a cellophane envelope this would have been an error. cellophane is an occlusive material if used there would be a danger that biological material would be subject to damp and consequent mould and bacterial decomposition, such as happened to the bra hook rendering it subsequently unsuitable for further testing and the towels from the crime scene (suggesting a certain lack of competency by the police forensic scientists). So Vixen is ignorant enough of good practice that she invents a detail that suggests the police were incompetent! Instead the officer said he put in an envelope from his desk presumably a paper envelope as would be correct as paper is permeable and allows the sample to dry. But not a proper forensic evidence bag. One might question why the police searched suspects home and had brought no proper evidence bags. One might ask whether this office envelope brought from the police station might have been exposed to any persons or items that had been present at the crime scene. Contaminating DNA from the outer surface of the envelope might be transferred to the knife.

Vixen the comments that the knife was put in to an envelope then into a desk diary box. Implying that knife and envelope were double bagged. Skipping over the fact the knife was removed from the envelope in the police station and inspected. There seems to be no good reason for this to have been done. As Vixen says the knife was then placed in the container that a calendar had been in. Presumably a more rigid box thought to be better for transporting of the knife. What we do not know is who or what had been through the office where the knife was removed from its envelope and repackaged. Was it routine practice to repackage evidence in this office? It certainly would have provided opportunity to put some of the victim's DNA on the knife, either accidentally or deliberately. Such a breach in the chain of evidence especially when subject to LCN DNA testing would have had the evidence excluded in the UK or US. Special rules apply to handling evidence which is planned for LCN DNA testing. If someone who had been at the murder scene had handled the box this may have been enough to transfer DNA to the outside of the box and then on to the knife as it was put into the box. An error here - good forensic practice - is to test the inside of the evidence bag as biological material may fall off in transit. Quite apart from preventing contamination taking the knife out of the original envelope may have lost biological evidence.



Which they might do if they were innocent and had found out the police were making up evidence.



But Sollecito does not say that this happened at his flat but at the girls. So again you elide two statements to imply some conflict where none is present.



These are what the forensic pathologists described as defensive wounds and were ruled as such by the courts, why do you describe them as flick wounds? No where in the court testimony is this term used. This seems to be part of your private fantasy that does not match the objective reality of the case.



Knox is thought to be guilty because she shows too little emotion or too much emotion. This is goldilocks, clearly if your flatmate has been murdered it is unnatural to be upset to be asked to look at knives. It always seemed curious that the knives in the flat were not tested because they were clean but Sollecito's knife was!



No they did not have the technology to do LCN testing. They could not do the test. They declined because they were unable to do the test. They preserved the sample so it could be subsequently tested in a laboratory equipped to do so. They clearly would have been acting outside of their authority to send it away or do a test they did not have the facilities to do so. They did the least harmful thing, kept the sample intact for testing elsewhere.



No this is wrong. Steffanoni claimed to have observed human tissue, when reinspected by Vecchiotti this was grains of starch. This was microscope examination of the knife not any testing of samples.

We have discussed this before. There were lots of superficial flick wounds on Mez hands and also on her face.

You can read about the cooking session here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-cooking.html

Or go direct to Raff's prison diary of 18 Nov 2007:

Quote:
November 18, 2007

They are keeping me in jail because of the kitchen knife that has a DNA trace belonging to Meredith. It seems like a horror movie... Thinking back and remembering, I remembered that that night father sent me a goodnight SMS message to be indiscreet [indiscreto, sic] (knowing that I was with Amanda), then, the following day, Amanda kept on telling me that if she had not been with me, she would be dead now [a quest’ora]. Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening.
I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente]. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...ry_(Translated)

I am not sure why you felt the need to change the location to the cottage. Your trying to revise history and shoe-horn the facts into a 'police conspiracy' indicates to me that in your heart you know your position is based on blind faith rather than on anything rational.


As for the knife, when I said 'cellophane', I was using the colloquial form, not the exact chemical description. Clearly, it is a forensic bag and would meet the ENFSI standard for sample collection.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg knife in bag.jpg (22.0 KB, 5 views)
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11

Last edited by Vixen; 30th January 2017 at 05:49 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
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 07:52 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.