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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 16th July 2018, 02:17 PM   #881
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Was Amanda Knox told in full detail the reasons for her arrest? When was she informed that if she accused someone during questioning, she would be assuming the responsibilities of a witness and could be charged with the crime of calunnia (false accusation) if the accusation was untrue? Italian law, CPP Article 64, requires such notification by the police when a suspect is questioned.

In the ECHR case Lutsenko v. Ukraine 6492/11, the ECHR states that it is a violation of the Convention to not fully explain, in a way the person can understand, why they are being arrested or detained, and that explanation must be provided immediately upon the arrest, and not, for example, hours later.

The relevance is that Knox was apparently not informed of the reasons for her arrest, or the charges for which she was being arrested, at the time of her arrest by the Italian authorities. The defense guarantees provided by Italian laws CPP Articles 63 and 64 were not carried out by the authorities, so the arrest could not be considered in accordance with Italian law, and thus arbitrary and contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights on that basis, as well as for other reasons.

Here is a relevant excerpt from Lutsenko v. Ukraine (inline citations omitted for clarity):

"77. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 2 of the Convention contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. By virtue of this provision any person arrested must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness.... In case of several concurring investigations, the authorities shall provide the person concerned with at least a minimum of information about each of them, if the materials from those investigations can serve as a basis for his detention....

78. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that it is in dispute between the parties whether and to what extent the applicant was informed of the formal reasons for his arrest. However, it is not disputed by the Government that at the time of his arrest on 26 December 2010 the applicant was not informed of the existing application for his detention prepared by the GPO on 25 December 2010. The Court considers that this particular event was pertinent to the applicant’s detention and ultimately served as a basis for his detention. In fact, the applicant only came to be informed of the prosecutor’s application of 25 December during the court hearings that took place on 27 December 2010, more than twenty hours after his arrest.

79. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the authorities did not comply with their obligations under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of this provision."
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 07:20 PM   #882
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Here's an example of how the ECHR evaluates a case where it finds that a state has acted in bad faith - that is, with trickery or deception - in arresting someone, as Italy did in the Knox case (as claimed by a guilter in a post on this forum, and which is a claim which is objectively true).

The example excerpt is from the case of Rudnichenko v. Ukraine 2775/07, where the ECHR ruled as followed (inline citations omitted for clarity):

"1. The parties’ submissions

63. The applicant maintained that his detention could not be regarded as lawful because from 6 to 9 January 2006 it had been based on fictitious grounds and from 9 to 12 January 2006 it had not been authorised by any court order.

64. The Government contended that the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the domestic legislation. Having regard to the circumstances of his apprehension on 6 January 2006, the Government noted that there had been a reasonable suspicion to justify the applicant’s arrest as a criminal suspect on 9 January 2006. As to his detention from 9 to 12 January 2006, which was not covered by any court order, they submitted that under the Ukrainian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, no such order was obligatory for the first seventy-two hours following arrest.

2. The Court’s assessment

(a) The applicant’s detention from 6 to 9 January 2006

65. The Court observes that, as suggested by the facts of the case and admitted by the domestic authorities themselves (namely in the report by the arresting officer of 6 January and the ruling of the Leninskyy Court of 29 March 2006 – see paragraphs 8 and 26 above), on 6 January 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (car theft). Nevertheless, his three-day detention was documented as a punishment for an administrative (minor) offence, namely being drunk in public.

66. The Court notes that the practice of placing a person in administrative detention on an artificial pretext, in order to have him available for questioning in respect of a criminal offence under investigation appears to have been a recurring problem in Ukraine, and has been condemned in a number of the Court’s judgments....

67. In the present case, similarly, the Court considers that the authorities acted in bad faith and deceitfully in respect of the applicant, thus breaching the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

(b) The applicant’s detention from 9 to 12 January 2006

68. The Court notes that on 9 January 2006, the three-day period of the applicant’s detention, documented as being administrative, expired. The investigator then re-arrested him, this time on suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence three days earlier.

69. The Court observes that under Ukrainian law, deprivation of liberty without a reasoned court order was only possible in a limited number of situations. Article 29 of the Constitution permitted such a measure to be applied for a maximum of three days, only in cases where there was an urgent need to prevent or stop an offence being committed, while Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that an investigator could arrest a person if the latter was caught in flagrante delicto, was identified as the perpetrator by eyewitnesses or the victim(s), or if there was clear evidence on his body or clothing which linked him to the crime....

70. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that on 6 January 2006, the applicant was arrested having been caught in flagrante delicto. The procedural three-day time-limit for his detention without a court order should have started running from that date. The authorities, however, circumvented it by placing him in administrative detention on an artificial pretext.

71. Accordingly, the malpractice regarding his initial detention criticised above also undermined the lawfulness of his detention without a court order during the subsequent three days, that is to say the period between 9 and 12 January 2006.

(c) Conclusion

72. The Court thus concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicant’s detention from 6 to 12 January 2006. That being so and having regard to its considerations in paragraphs 65-67 above, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to whether the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit, which was previously joined to the merits of this complaint...."

While the circumstances of the example case are an imperfect match to that of the situation of the arrests of Knox and Sollecito, it is clear that bad faith - deception - by the authorities was a significant commonality between the two cases. Thus, the ECHR may consider this bad faith as a clear indicator of a violation of the Convention by the Italian authorities in the case of Knox v. Italy.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 09:09 PM   #883
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Here's another ECHR case where a finding of "bad faith" or deception on the part of the authorities in arresting someone under false pretenses leads to a judgment of a violation of the Convention. Knox (and Sollecito) were also the victims of bad faith or deception in their arrests by the Italian authorities. Apparently this is not in dispute by the guilters, because one guilter has posted in this forum that Knox was "tricked" into "confessing" by Donnino's "mediation" rather than properly providing fair interpretation.

The consistency of the language in the references to previous case-law in the judgment should be noted. This is an important difference between the judgments of the ECHR and the Italian courts, which do not necessarily follow precedence and sometimes overlook or ignore Italian laws pertaining to defense rights.

Inline citations are omitted for clarity in the following excerpt.

"GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN 60259/11


1. The parties’ submissions

99. The applicant argued that his arrest and five days’ administrative detention under Article 310.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the CAO had been arbitrary since he had not disobeyed any order of a police officer. The opening of administrative proceedings against participants of unauthorised demonstrations under Article 310.1 rather than Article 298 (violation of rules on holding public assemblies) of the CAO was an arbitrary administrative practice aimed at imposing a harsher form of punishment, such as administrative detention for up to fifteen days, which was not available under the latter Article.

100. The applicant further complained that he had not been promptly informed about the reasons for his arrest, and that the arrest had not conformed to domestic procedural rules, in particular because he had not been given an opportunity to contact his relatives; his rights, including the right to have a lawyer, had not been properly explained to him; he had not been served with a copy of the administrative-offence report drawn up in his respect; and he had been arrested and taken to a police car by plain-clothed persons.

101. The Government submitted that the applicant’s arrest had been in conformity with Article 399.3 of the CAO. According to this Article, a person in respect of whom proceedings are carried out for an administrative offence punishable by administrative detention may be taken into custody for up to twenty-four hours. The Government further submitted that after the administrative-offence report stating that the applicant had violated Article 310 of the CAO had been drawn up, the applicant had been brought before a court. His administrative detention had resulted from a lawful court decision by which he had been found guilty of an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the CAO.

102. The Government also submitted that the applicant had been duly informed about the reasons for his arrest as well as his rights under the relevant provisions of the CAO; however, he had refused to sign the administrative-offence report and a relevant note had accordingly been included in the report.

2. The Court’s assessment

103. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the fundamental right to liberty and security. That right is of primary importance in a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention....

104. Any deprivation of liberty must, in addition to falling within one of the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), be “lawful”. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law.... Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness....

105. It is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1 and the notion of “arbitrariness” in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention.... While the Court has not previously formulated a global definition as to what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute “arbitrariness” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, key principles have been developed on a case-by-case basis....

106. Furthermore, detention will be considered “arbitrary” where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities ... or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly....

107. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant was arrested in the course of the dispersal of an unauthorised demonstration on 19 June 2011. He was taken to a police station where he was kept in police custody overnight, and was brought before a court which sentenced him to five days’ administrative detention.

108. The Court reiterates its finding above that the measure to which the applicant was subjected (namely arrest and custody followed by five days’ imprisonment) pursued aims unrelated to the formal ground relied on to justify the deprivation of liberty, and implied an element of bad faith on the part of the police officers. While he was formally charged with failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer, the applicant was in fact detained for his participation in an unauthorised peaceful demonstration.... Furthermore, there are sufficient elements to conclude that the domestic courts that imposed the administrative detention also acted arbitrarily in reviewing both the factual and the legal grounds for the applicant’s detention. They failed to examine whether the police had invoked the correct legal basis for the applicant’s arrest or to examine the legality of the police’s interference with the demonstration.... In such circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty as a whole was arbitrary and therefore contrary to the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

109. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention."

For the relevance to Knox v. Italy, see paragraph 108 above. It may be argued that Knox was prosecuted and convicted of calunnia against Lumumba not because any of the Italian authorities considered her to have committed that alleged crime by her coerced statements during the interrogation, which were obtained in violation of Italian law (CPP Article 63) according to the Gemelli CSC panel motivation report, but rather, as the Gemelli CSC panel wrote in its motivation report, because she had written a defensive document soon after her interrogation. And that defensive document briefly outlined her claims that she had been mistreated by the police in order to coerce her to make statements against her will (itself a violation of Italian law, CPP Article 188). The prosecution and conviction were all dedicated to providing the police with impunity for these implicitly alleged violations of Italian law. The presumed alleged violations were detailed in the charges of calunnia against the police leveled against Knox, for which charges she was acquitted by the Boninsegna court on the basis that she had not committed that crime. By this argument, if the ECHR adopts it, the Italian authorities had acted in bad faith in prosecuting and convicting Knox of calunnia against Lumumba.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 07:35 AM   #884
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Excerpts from Case of FEFILOV v. RUSSIA 6587/07, another ECHR judgment of interest:

"51. The general principles with regard to the starting point of a “criminal charge”, the right to legal assistance, the right to be informed of that right and the privilege against self-incrimination, the waiver of the right to legal assistance, the temporary restriction of access to a lawyer for “compelling reasons”, and the impact of the procedural failings in the pre-trial stage on the overall fairness of the proceedings are set forth in the Court’s Simeonovi v. Bulgaria judgment ([GC], no. 21980/04, §§ 110-19, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).

52. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that at 6 p.m. on 22 March 2005 the applicant was arrested and brought to the police station. It is apparent from the facts of the case, which are not disputed by the Government, that at the time of his confession, at 9.50 p.m. on 22 March 2005, the applicant was being held in police custody for the sole reason that he was suspected of having committed a murder. The applicant was formally assigned the status of a criminal suspect at 00.05 a.m. on 23 March 2005, when the record of his arrest was drawn up.

53. The Court reiterates that under the Convention a person acquires the status of a suspect calling for the application of Article 6 safeguards, including the right to legal assistance, not when it is formally assigned to him, but when the domestic authorities have plausible reasons for suspecting that person’s involvement in a criminal offence (see Simeonovi, cited above, §§ 110-11). The police officers were therefore obliged to afford the applicant the rights of a suspect, including access to a lawyer, from the moment of his actual arrest.

54. The Court notes, however, that the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to benefit from legal advice until after he had signed a statement of surrender and confession and had been formally assigned the status of a suspect in the criminal case. No justification – other than that of compliance with the domestic law, which did not require the presence of a lawyer at the moment of the making of the confession – was offered by the domestic court for the applicant’s lack of access to a lawyer in police custody for several hours between the actual time of his arrest and the time when the record of his arrest was drawn up (see paragraph 24 above).

55. In such circumstances, even if the applicant was indeed informed of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself prior to making a confession (see paragraph 9 above), having regard to the fact that he was not informed of his right to legal assistance as from the moment of his de facto arrest, the applicant cannot be considered to have validly waived his entitlement to legal assistance.

56. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant’s access to a lawyer from the moment of his de facto arrest was restricted, without any “compelling reason”. It will therefore proceed with the examination of the impact of this procedural failing on the overall fairness of the proceedings.
....
62. The Court furthermore observes that the applicant’s allegations to the effect that his confession had not been made voluntarily but had been the result of the ill-treatment inflicted by the police were dismissed as unsubstantiated for lack of evidence of any bodily injuries sustained by the applicant at the material time (see paragraphs 12, 17 and 22 above). However, even in the absence of any duress against the applicant at the time of his confession, the applicant’s having spent several hours in police custody without the benefit of legal advice and without his arrest having been recorded could not but have amounted to a coercive environment.

63. Lastly, the Court observes that the applicant claimed that the domestic court had used his confession as a basis for his conviction, which, in the absence of other direct evidence of his involvement in the murder, had rendered the proceedings against him unfair (see paragraph 21 above). The Court notes that the applicant’s confession indeed provided the domestic investigating authorities with the framework around which they subsequently built their case and the focus for their search for other corroborating evidence. The Court therefore concludes that, having regard to the central position of the applicant’s confession in the prosecution’s case, it can be considered to have formed an integral and significant part of the probative evidence upon which the conviction was based (compare Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 309, and contrast Artur Parkhomenko v. Ukraine, no. 40464/05, § 87, 16 February 2017).

64. The Court does not lose sight of the existence of other relevant factors in the assessment of the overall fairness of the proceedings against the applicant. It notes, in particular, that the applicant was not particularly vulnerable, that the evidence in the case was assessed by professional judges, and that the public interest in the prosecution of the offence imputed to the applicant was very strong. However, against the background of other relevant factors examined by the Court (see paragraphs 59-63 above), they are not capable of tipping the balance in favour of considering the proceedings fair.

65. Having regard to the foregoing, and the failure of the Government to demonstrate convincingly why the overall fairness of the trial was not irretrievably prejudiced by the applicant’s lack of access to a lawyer from the moment of his de facto arrest, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in the present case."

Last edited by Numbers; 17th July 2018 at 07:38 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 09:01 AM   #885
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,477
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The wording is what irritated me. (Vixen) implies that she was "caught" and was trying not to be ''found". It implies guilt. But as we both pointed out, it was Knox who started the discovery and Sollecito who actually called the carabinieri to the cottage before the postales arrived. Knox and Sollecito weren't hiding from anyone; the postales said the two were sitting outside the cottage on the fence where it meets the corner, basically in front of Romanelli's window. Obviously they were waiting for the carabinieri. Even in the guilter scenario, they weren't busy cleaning up the blood in the bathroom or the rug with the footprint or trying to get the lamp back.
My apologies for being far too grumpy in responding to your post.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 09:31 AM   #886
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,045
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The wording is what irritated me. It implies that she was "caught" and was trying not to be ''found". It implies guilt. But as we both pointed out, it was Knox who started the discovery and Sollecito who actually called the carabinieri to the cottage before the postales arrived. Knox and Sollecito weren't hiding from anyone; the postales said the two were sitting outside the cottage on the fence where it meets the corner, basically in front of Romanelli's window. Obviously they were waiting for the carabinieri. Even in the guilter scenario, they weren't busy cleaning up the blood in the bathroom or the rug with the footprint or trying to get the lamp back.
And back to the original point of all of this - if Donnino was a legitimate, impartial translator she would have ensured she understood what Amanda meant and then informed the police of the error in their interpretation. But Donnino is a member of the Perugia Flying Squad and was part of the effort to get Amanda to sign a statement consistent with what they thought had happened. Rather than clarify for the interrogators what Amanda meant she tries to convince Amanda that she did meet Patrick, that all this did happen and that she was suffering from traumatic amnesia which is why she can't remember it. No wonder the interrogation recordings went missing.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 09:46 AM   #887
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
My apologies for being far too grumpy in responding to your post.
Nothing Teleflora can't fix.

Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
And back to the original point of all of this - if Donnino was a legitimate, impartial translator she would have ensured she understood what Amanda meant and then informed the police of the error in their interpretation. But Donnino is a member of the Perugia Flying Squad and was part of the effort to get Amanda to sign a statement consistent with what they thought had happened. Rather than clarify for the interrogators what Amanda meant she tries to convince Amanda that she did meet Patrick, that all this did happen and that she was suffering from traumatic amnesia which is why she can't remember it. No wonder the interrogation recordings went missing.
Exactly. There is a reason there are no recordings of the two most critical interrogations...which the police knew them to be. That reason had absolutely nothing to do with "budget" problems.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 09:56 AM   #888
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
An ECHR judgment published 17 July 2018 has important implications for Amanda Knox's pending case, reinforcing the likelihood that the ECHR will rule that Italy violated her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights by convicting her of calunnia (false accusation) against Patrick Lumumba. While most of that new judgment is based on previous ECHR case-law, there appears to be some new case-law in it. I've posted a relevant excerpt from that new judgment, Fefilov v. Russia 6587/07, in this forum.

Here are some of the key points of relevant case-law from Fefilov v. Russia:

1. "The general principles with regard to the starting point of a “criminal charge”, the right to legal assistance, the right to be informed of that right and the privilege against self-incrimination, the waiver of the right to legal assistance, the temporary restriction of access to a lawyer for “compelling reasons”, and the impact of the procedural failings in the pre-trial stage on the overall fairness of the proceedings are set forth in the Court’s Simeonovi v. Bulgaria judgment ([GC], no. 21980/04, §§ 110-19, ECHR 2017". [paragraph 51 of Fefilov v. Russia]

2. "The Court reiterates that under the Convention a person acquires the status of a suspect calling for the application of Article 6 safeguards, including the right to legal assistance, not when it is formally assigned to him, but when the domestic authorities have plausible reasons for suspecting that person’s involvement in a criminal offence...." [paragraph 53]

3. A de facto suspect is to be provided with the opportunity to have a lawyer present before the police ask or coerce him to sign a confession or other incriminating statement, even if domestic law allows the taking of a confession or other incriminating statement without a lawyer. This is true especially when the suspect is in the police station for some hours before the confession or statement is obtained. The de facto suspect is to be provided the right to a lawyer from the moment of de facto arrest. Even if the suspect is informed of his right not to incriminate himself at the time of the de facto arrest, failure to inform him of his right to a lawyer does not mean that he has validly waived his right to legal assistance. [paragraphs 54 and 55]

4. Thus, unless there is a truly compelling reason {such as a need to conduct a safety interview conducted to find explosives in the case of a terrorism suspect} to deny access of the de facto suspect to a lawyer, the ECHR will examine whether the procedural failure to provide legal assistance had a significant effect on the overall judicial proceedings. [paragraph 56]

5. Even in the absence of any duress against an applicant at the time of his confession or incriminating statement, an applicant’s having spent several hours in police custody without the benefit of legal advice and without his arrest having been recorded could not but have amounted to a coercive environment. This is true even if there were no physical signs of abuse or ill-treatment on the suspect's body. [paragraph 62]

6. The ECHR (Court) observes that the applicant claimed that the domestic court had used his confession as a basis for his conviction, which, in the absence of other direct evidence of his involvement in the murder, had rendered the proceedings against him unfair. The Court notes that the applicant’s confession indeed provided the domestic investigating authorities with the framework around which they subsequently built their case and the focus for their search for other corroborating evidence. The Court therefore concludes that, having regard to the central position of the applicant’s confession in the prosecution’s case, it can be considered to have formed an integral and significant part of the probative evidence upon which the conviction was based. [paragraph 63]

7. The Court does not lose sight of the existence of other relevant factors in the assessment of the overall fairness of the proceedings against an applicant. It may consider, for example, whether the applicant was particularly vulnerable, whether the evidence in the case was assessed by professional judges, and the strength of the public interest in the prosecution of the offence imputed to the applicant. However, even if the background of other relevant factors examined by the Court does not indicate a concern, the proceedings will not be considered fair if legal representation is denied to a de facto suspect who confesses or makes an incriminating statement without a valid waiver of legal assistance. [paragraph 64]

8. Failure of the Government to demonstrate convincingly why the overall fairness of the trial was not irretrievably prejudiced by the applicant’s lack of access to a lawyer from the moment of his de facto arrest, the Court will find that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. [paragraph 65]
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 10:37 AM   #889
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
This is strong evidence that the ECHR will rule in Amanda's favor.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 06:39 PM   #890
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,477
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
And back to the original point of all of this - if Donnino was a legitimate, impartial translator she would have ensured she understood what Amanda meant and then informed the police of the error in their interpretation. But Donnino is a member of the Perugia Flying Squad and was part of the effort to get Amanda to sign a statement consistent with what they thought had happened. Rather than clarify for the interrogators what Amanda meant she tries to convince Amanda that she did meet Patrick, that all this did happen and that she was suffering from traumatic amnesia which is why she can't remember it. No wonder the interrogation recordings went missing.
This.

Studies of wrongful convictions all point to a series of failures at each step of the process. This was Anna Donnino's contribution to what ended up with two people in prison for four years, wrongfully (provisionally) convicted until the Supreme Court eventually definitively acquitted them.

Translators translate. While the technicalities of translating idioms, etc., can be challenging - translators do not insert themselves the way Donnino did.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 06:50 PM   #891
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This.

Studies of wrongful convictions all point to a series of failures at each step of the process. This was Anna Donnino's contribution to what ended up with two people in prison for four years, wrongfully (provisionally) convicted until the Supreme Court eventually definitively acquitted them.

Translators translate. While the technicalities of translating idioms, etc., can be challenging - translators do not insert themselves the way Donnino did.
But, but, she had no reason to help the police convince Amanda that she really did meet Patrick that night.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 08:24 AM   #892
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This.

Studies of wrongful convictions all point to a series of failures at each step of the process. This was Anna Donnino's contribution to what ended up with two people in prison for four years, wrongfully (provisionally) convicted until the Supreme Court eventually definitively acquitted them.

Translators translate. While the technicalities of translating idioms, etc., can be challenging - translators do not insert themselves the way Donnino did.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But, but, she had no reason to help the police convince Amanda that she really did meet Patrick that night.
I'm going to use these posts to point out again how the police and prosecution lied in the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case. The guilters either repeated those lies uncritically, modified them, or made up new ones.

Probably no one will disagree with the following: 1) lies are false statements uttered with the intent to deceive; 2) a false statement may have true elements within it, but becomes false because at least one relevant element is false or at least one relevant element is omitted [the witness oath is to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"]; and 3) when a person claims in a statement to be telling the truth about some important matter, that person has an obligation to include relevant readily-obtainable known true information in that statement.

Donnino and the police lied in their documentation of the interrogation by omitting relevant information that was later brought out in uncontested testimony. For example, Donnino testified that she had indeed discussed with Knox an alleged incident in which Donnino had suffered a fractured leg and subsequently had an episode of traumatic amnesia. Failure of the police to include this relevant information in the documentation of the questioning of the interrogation was thus a lie by the police. In fact, the police did not fully document their questioning leading up to Knox's signature of a false statement accusing Lumumba that was prepared in Italian by the police. This obviously indicates that any claim by police that Knox said this on her own volition is a lie.

The guilters have posted numerous lies or falsehoods pretending that those statements were true and not indicating that they were fictions. Sometimes these statements were predicated on questionable claims that were stated or implied.

For example, some guilters claimed that despite her statement in her blog in November, 2013 that she had sent an application to the ECHR alleging that her rights had been violated by Italy, stated that no such application was filed because they found no trace of it in public ECHR records and because (in their view) Knox always lied. The guilters left out the known fact that applications to the ECHR are not announced in a public ECHR announcement (on the HUDOC database) until the application is reviewed by the ECHR and either found inadmissible and thus announced as rejected in a decision posted on HUDOC or preliminarily at least partly admissible and thus, for the admissible part (which may be all the claims of the application) communicated to the respondent state. The treatment of this matter by the guilters originating it was thus a lie.

Another lie originating from some of the guilters was that the Knox application was inadmissible because it had "clearly" missed the six-month time limit after the final judgment of a domestic authority. The guilters based this statement on the date of the announcement of the short-form verdict by the Chieffi CSC panel. However, the ECHR makes absolutely clear that it considers the start date for the six-month limit the delivery of the motivation report - the complete verdict including the reasoning - to the applicant or her lawyers. The failure of the statements of the guilters to reflect the truth might be considered by some to be an error or difficulty in reading comprehension, but in context, it is, I believe, an intentional distortion intended to deceive, disparage Knox, and dismay uninformed supporters of Knox and justice.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 09:03 AM   #893
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,477
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Aother lie originating from some of the guilters was that the Knox application was inadmissible because it had "clearly" missed the six-month time limit after the final judgment of a domestic authority. The guilters based this statement on the date of the announcement of the short-form verdict by the Chieffi CSC panel. However, the ECHR makes absolutely clear that it considers the start date for the six-month limit the delivery of the motivation report - the complete verdict including the reasoning - to the applicant or her lawyers. The failure of the statements of the guilters to reflect the truth might be considered by some to be an error or difficulty in reading comprehension, but in context, it is, I believe, an intentional distortion intended to deceive, disparage Knox, and dismay uninformed supporters of Knox and justice.
Taking this as an example….

Why lie about this when the lie is so easily disproven? The only avenue left to these purveyors of an awkward PR campaign is to then claim conspiracy when they are shown wrong.

They claim the 6-month period had been missed, yet the claim was filed within the six-month period following the publication of the motivations report. They stick to their original lie and then claim the acceptance of the claim is proof of some sort of conspiracy to aid Knox.

It's just that all this lying is so transparent.... and what has plagued the case since the beginning, when (for instance) some had claimed that the break-in had to have been staged because the climb in through Filomena's window had been impossible. This, despite the climb being very doable (as even the original Massei report had conceded!)

Add to this, the main reason why guilters believe as they do is as they claim, "All the lies Amanda told." I need to repost the "list of lies" I once compiled from guilter sources, mainly from The Machine/Harry Rag who once listed what he'd claimed were lies.... strangely his list was lies attributed to Raffaele, and the main lie he attributed to Amanda was what he claimed she'd said about Lumumba.... which brings us full circle to what's in front of the ECHR.

Add to this.... the lie that Harr Rag had promulgated on every comments' section of every news outlet that there'd been "mixed-blood" found in the bathroom that Knox/Victim had shared. There had been no mixed blood which (again) even the Massei report from 2010 had conceded, but that did not stop Harry Rag from claiming it (almost daily for 7 years). To his credit, Harry Rag eventually gave up on "mixed blood".
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 10:03 AM   #894
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Taking this as an example….

Why lie about this when the lie is so easily disproven? The only avenue left to these purveyors of an awkward PR campaign is to then claim conspiracy when they are shown wrong.

They claim the 6-month period had been missed, yet the claim was filed within the six-month period following the publication of the motivations report. They stick to their original lie and then claim the acceptance of the claim is proof of some sort of conspiracy to aid Knox.

It's just that all this lying is so transparent.... and what has plagued the case since the beginning, when (for instance) some had claimed that the break-in had to have been staged because the climb in through Filomena's window had been impossible. This, despite the climb being very doable (as even the original Massei report had conceded!)

Add to this, the main reason why guilters believe as they do is as they claim, "All the lies Amanda told." I need to repost the "list of lies" I once compiled from guilter sources, mainly from The Machine/Harry Rag who once listed what he'd claimed were lies.... strangely his list was lies attributed to Raffaele, and the main lie he attributed to Amanda was what he claimed she'd said about Lumumba.... which brings us full circle to what's in front of the ECHR.

Add to this.... the lie that Harr Rag had promulgated on every comments' section of every news outlet that there'd been "mixed-blood" found in the bathroom that Knox/Victim had shared. There had been no mixed blood which (again) even the Massei report from 2010 had conceded, but that did not stop Harry Rag from claiming it (almost daily for 7 years). To his credit, Harry Rag eventually gave up on "mixed blood".
I should modify my last statement to read as follows:

The failure of the statements of the guilters to reflect the truth might be considered by some to be an error or difficulty in reading comprehension, but in context, it is, I believe, an intentional distortion intended to deceive, disparage Knox, dismay uninformed supporters of Knox and justice, and delight the haters of Knox and justice.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 12:49 PM   #895
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,484
I'm wondering Numbers. Do you have any Italian revision rulings after an ECHR decision that might be pertinent?
__________________
“ 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 02:22 PM   #896
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,477
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I should modify my last statement to read as follows:

The failure of the statements of the guilters to reflect the truth might be considered by some to be an error or difficulty in reading comprehension, but in context, it is, I believe, an intentional distortion intended to deceive, disparage Knox, dismay uninformed supporters of Knox and justice, and delight the haters of Knox and justice.
..... meaning, it's been no less than a guilter-PR campaign; principally aimed at Knox, but occasionally taking a swipe at Sollecito with Rudy Guede (the real killer) barely meritting a mention.

And while advertising itself as motivated by the fear that the original victim, Meredith Kercher, was being forgotten - the guilter-PR campaign did little of practical value for the victim or her family, save for the constant need to vilify Knox.

Second on the list was the need to rehabilitate Mignini's reputation, as well as the rest of the sordid cast of characters. Take a look at the comparison between the Italian language Wikipedia page for "Omicidio di Meredith Kercher", and the other English Language Wikipedia page for "Giuliano Mignini". The latter is not in the Italian Wikipedia, but the English one has been vandalized (by the usual cast of characters) to put the long since debinked info/excuses about him.

It re-argues the trials to try to make it seem that neither Knox nor Sollecito had been acquitted, whereas even the Italian Wikipedia page is quite clear that they were:
Originally Posted by Italian Wikipedia machine translation to English
On March 27, 2015, the fifth penal section of the Supreme Court of Cassation , presided over by the director Gennaro Marasca, cancels without delay the condemnations to Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, acquitting them for not having committed the fact, stating the lack of certain evidence and the presence of numerous errors in the investigations, and thus ending the judicial case.
If anyone had interest in investigating Mignini, they could probably fill out more. But then again, Douglas Preston has already done that with Mignini's handling of The Monster of Florence case.

But it would be interesting to find out just how much this English-language guilter-PR campaign was to rehabilitate Mignini's image.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 03:28 PM   #897
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm wondering Numbers. Do you have any Italian revision rulings after an ECHR decision that might be pertinent?
Your question is a really good one. By that, I mean to say that I don't have any statistical information relevant to your question, and I don't know how to obtain any statistical information relevant to your question, so in those senses I am truly stumped.

On the other hand, I have some information about a notorious individual case requiring revision after an ECHR judgment, and which was eventually resolved in accordance with the ECHR's judgment. That is the case of Bruno Contrada v. Italy (No. 3).

Bruno Contrada was a police officer in Palmero, Italy, whose work included service on an anti-Mafia task force during the 1980s. However, in 1992, he was arrested on charges of providing the Mafia with police information related to the Mafia that was meant to be secret. He was eventually convicted of those charges.

However, according to the ECHR judgment in Contrada v. Italy (No. 3), he should not have been convicted because his actions were not specified as a crime in the Italian Criminal Code or in Italian jurisprudence at the time he committed those actions. According to the Convention (and Italian law), one can only be convicted of actions that are clearly described as crimes under law at the time the actions are committed.

Contrada's requests for revision were refused by the Italian courts of appeal in Catania and in Palmero. However, in July, 2017, the Supreme Court of Cassation granted revision and revoked Contrada's criminal conviction. He had already served his 10 year prison sentence, so possibly he may be entitled to compensation (doubtful because his actions may be considered misconduct) and possibly restoration of his pension.

The original ECHR judgment in Contrada v. Italy (No. 3) is in French. Here is the English language summary from the press release:

"The principles that the criminal law may not be applied retroactively and must be foreseeable were not respected in a case involving a charge of aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation from the outside

In today’s [14 April 2015] Chamber judgment in the case of Contrada v. Italy (no. 3) (application no. 66655/13), the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the issue of whether the actions for which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment constituted a criminal offence at the time when they were committed.

The Court held that the offence of “aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation from the outside” had resulted from a development in the case-law which had begun toward the end of the 1980s and was consolidated in 1994, and that it was not therefore sufficiently clear and foreseeable for Mr Contrada at the time of the events in respect of which he was charged (1979-1988)."

Here's an Italian media article reporting on the CSC granting revision and revoking the conviction:

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...renza/3713689/

This case is significant in another way, because guilters have used the initial refusal of the Italian appeal courts to grant revision to Contrada after the ECHR judgment against Italy as an indication that Italian courts would likewise refuse revision to Knox after a potential judgment against Italy in her case. As we see from the actual facts, the Contrada case shows that Italy eventually does follow ECHR judgments.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th July 2018 at 03:32 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 04:55 PM   #898
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,484
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Your question is a really good one. By that, I mean to say that I don't have any statistical information relevant to your question, and I don't know how to obtain any statistical information relevant to your question, so in those senses I am truly stumped.

On the other hand, I have some information about a notorious individual case requiring revision after an ECHR judgment, and which was eventually resolved in accordance with the ECHR's judgment. That is the case of Bruno Contrada v. Italy (No. 3).

Bruno Contrada was a police officer in Palmero, Italy, whose work included service on an anti-Mafia task force during the 1980s. However, in 1992, he was arrested on charges of providing the Mafia with police information related to the Mafia that was meant to be secret. He was eventually convicted of those charges.

However, according to the ECHR judgment in Contrada v. Italy (No. 3), he should not have been convicted because his actions were not specified as a crime in the Italian Criminal Code or in Italian jurisprudence at the time he committed those actions. According to the Convention (and Italian law), one can only be convicted of actions that are clearly described as crimes under law at the time the actions are committed.

Contrada's requests for revision were refused by the Italian courts of appeal in Catania and in Palmero. However, in July, 2017, the Supreme Court of Cassation granted revision and revoked Contrada's criminal conviction. He had already served his 10 year prison sentence, so possibly he may be entitled to compensation (doubtful because his actions may be considered misconduct) and possibly restoration of his pension.

The original ECHR judgment in Contrada v. Italy (No. 3) is in French. Here is the English language summary from the press release:

"The principles that the criminal law may not be applied retroactively and must be foreseeable were not respected in a case involving a charge of aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation from the outside

In today’s [14 April 2015] Chamber judgment in the case of Contrada v. Italy (no. 3) (application no. 66655/13), the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the issue of whether the actions for which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment constituted a criminal offence at the time when they were committed.

The Court held that the offence of “aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation from the outside” had resulted from a development in the case-law which had begun toward the end of the 1980s and was consolidated in 1994, and that it was not therefore sufficiently clear and foreseeable for Mr Contrada at the time of the events in respect of which he was charged (1979-1988)."

Here's an Italian media article reporting on the CSC granting revision and revoking the conviction:

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...renza/3713689/

This case is significant in another way, because guilters have used the initial refusal of the Italian appeal courts to grant revision to Contrada after the ECHR judgment against Italy as an indication that Italian courts would likewise refuse revision to Knox after a potential judgment against Italy in her case. As we see from the actual facts, the Contrada case shows that Italy eventually does follow ECHR judgments.
Thanks Numbers. I tried a few Google searches and came up empty. I would like to read what the Italian Courts have done in relation to plaintiffs who were successful with their ECHR petitions. I probably would have had better luck searching in Italian but of course I don't speak Italian.

Anyway, thanks.
__________________
“ 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 05:10 PM   #899
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thanks Numbers. I tried a few Google searches and came up empty. I would like to read what the Italian Courts have done in relation to plaintiffs who were successful with their ECHR petitions. I probably would have had better luck searching in Italian but of course I don't speak Italian.

Anyway, thanks.
There was considerable animosity to Contrada, a police officer who was (it was alleged) an informant for (rather than against) the Mafia, and there was strong resistance to his receiving a revision hearing. Yet, the CSC granted him a revision hearing and revoked his sentence.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 05:24 PM   #900
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,484
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There was considerable animosity to Contrada, a police officer who was (it was alleged) an informant for (rather than against) the Mafia, and there was strong resistance to his receiving a revision hearing. Yet, the CSC granted him a revision hearing and revoked his sentence.
I sort of expect Italy to annul the callunia decision but expect them to deny compensation just like they did with Raffaele. I read that they have been compensating some torture victims as a result of an ECHR decision.
__________________
“ 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 05:54 PM   #901
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I sort of expect Italy to annul the callunia decision but expect them to deny compensation just like they did with Raffaele. I read that they have been compensating some torture victims as a result of an ECHR decision.
There's no way to rationally predict what the Italian courts will do based on any one case.

However, in the Contrada case, following the CSC judgment in his revision hearing revoking his sentence of conviction, he was reinstated in the police force for the time from when he was suspended or terminated after arrest until his formal retirement age. Then he was awarded his back pay for that period, according to the Italian media.

See:

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...ressi/3914045/
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 07:03 PM   #902
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,484
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There's no way to rationally predict what the Italian courts will do based on any one case.

However, in the Contrada case, following the CSC judgment in his revision hearing revoking his sentence of conviction, he was reinstated in the police force for the time from when he was suspended or terminated after arrest until his formal retirement age. Then he was awarded his back pay for that period, according to the Italian media.

See:

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...ressi/3914045/

Thanks.

I'd like to say universally in the US compensating exonerees is handled better, but it varies so much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
__________________
“ 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 11:22 AM   #903
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
Harry Rag may have given up on the "mixed blood" lie, but the lies continue on TJMK. On June 12, Hopeful wrote in the comments section of Cardiol MD's article:

Quote:
The Luminol showed a bloody footprint in the hall with both Knox and Kercher’s DNA in it.
Notice there is no mention of the fact that all the luminol revealed footprints tested negative for blood with TMB. Since the footprint contained no blood, it could not be dated to the time of the murder. The footprint could have been left, innocently and normally, at any time by either of the two girls who regularly walked that hallway barefooted. But true to guilter confirmation bias, Hopeful ignores the well-known fact of the negative TMB tests.

Hopeful also wrote:

Quote:
Point #10 above names 3 places where Knox DNA was found in Meredith’s blood: bidet, sink, cotton swab box.
Once again, Hopeful ignores the fact that finding the mixed DNA of people who share the same home, especially a bathroom, is common. She ignores the fact that DNA does not have to be deposited at the same time to become mixed. Why do so many guilters have such difficulty understanding that wiping up a blood sample (or any sample), deposited over/next to pre-existing DNA, can (and does) also pick up that DNA? There were five mixed DNA samples found in Sollecito's apartment (Sollecito/Knox and Sollecito/unidentified male). Blood is no different than saliva, etc. when it comes to how it can be mixed with pre-existing DNA.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 11:36 AM   #904
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,722
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Harry Rag may have given up on the "mixed blood" lie, but the lies continue on TJMK. On June 12, Hopeful wrote in the comments section of Cardiol MD's article:



Notice there is no mention of the fact that all the luminol revealed footprints tested negative for blood with TMB. Since the footprint contained no blood, it could not be dated to the time of the murder. The footprint could have been left, innocently and normally, at any time by either of the two girls who regularly walked that hallway barefooted. But true to guilter confirmation bias, Hopeful ignores the well-known fact of the negative TMB tests.

Hopeful also wrote:



Once again, Hopeful ignores the fact that finding the mixed DNA of people who share the same home, especially a bathroom, is common. She ignores the fact that DNA does not have to be deposited at the same time to become mixed. Why do so many guilters have such difficulty understanding that wiping up a blood sample (or any sample), deposited over/next to pre-existing DNA, can (and does) also pick up that DNA? There were five mixed DNA samples found in Sollecito's apartment (Sollecito/Knox and Sollecito/unidentified male). Blood is no different than saliva, etc. when it comes to how it can be mixed with pre-existing DNA.
We do not know the DNA was mixed. We see the video of the swabbing done over a large area of the bidet or basin. The DNA of two different individuals may have been physically separate and have been deposited at different times. As Steffanoni said in her evidence, the source of the DNA cannot be known. The time of deposition cannot be known. All we know is that the DNA of Knox and Kercher were present on the area that was swabbed, there is no evidence that they were co-located.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 11:55 AM   #905
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
We do not know the DNA was mixed. We see the video of the swabbing done over a large area of the bidet or basin. The DNA of two different individuals may have been physically separate and have been deposited at different times. As Steffanoni said in her evidence, the source of the DNA cannot be known. The time of deposition cannot be known. All we know is that the DNA of Knox and Kercher were present on the area that was swabbed, there is no evidence that they were co-located.
You are correct. We cannot know if the samples were actually mixed or just picked up at the same time by the way the swabbing was done. But it doesn't really matter as the mixed DNA of cohabitating people is common and normal. Why the guilters think that Knox's DNA mixed with Kercher's blood means Knox killed Kercher is due only to their confirmation bias and certainly not on forensic science.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 02:09 PM   #906
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,008
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Harry Rag may have given up on the "mixed blood" lie, but the lies continue on TJMK. On June 12, Hopeful wrote in the comments section of Cardiol MD's article:



Notice there is no mention of the fact that all the luminol revealed footprints tested negative for blood with TMB.
It didn't contain MK's DNA either
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 03:15 PM   #907
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
It didn't contain MK's DNA either
True as no footprint revealed by luminol had both their DNA. I think Hopeful was referring to the shoe print (sample 183) found by luminol in the hallway. Who this shoe belonged to was never identified. It could have belonged to any of the girls in the house or even a visitor. Imagine, a shoe picking up (non-blood) DNA from the floor of a house where two people lived. Now, how in the world could that happen? I wonder if Hopeful could figure that out? Some people's critical thinking skills are sadly lacking.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 03:27 PM   #908
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,363
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Harry Rag may have given up on the "mixed blood" lie, but the lies continue on TJMK. On June 12, Hopeful wrote in the comments section of Cardiol MD's article:



Notice there is no mention of the fact that all the luminol revealed footprints tested negative for blood with TMB. Since the footprint contained no blood, it could not be dated to the time of the murder. The footprint could have been left, innocently and normally, at any time by either of the two girls who regularly walked that hallway barefooted. But true to guilter confirmation bias, Hopeful ignores the well-known fact of the negative TMB tests.

Hopeful also wrote:



Once again, Hopeful ignores the fact that finding the mixed DNA of people who share the same home, especially a bathroom, is common. She ignores the fact that DNA does not have to be deposited at the same time to become mixed. Why do so many guilters have such difficulty understanding that wiping up a blood sample (or any sample), deposited over/next to pre-existing DNA, can (and does) also pick up that DNA? There were five mixed DNA samples found in Sollecito's apartment (Sollecito/Knox and Sollecito/unidentified male). Blood is no different than saliva, etc. when it comes to how it can be mixed with pre-existing DNA.
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
We do not know the DNA was mixed. We see the video of the swabbing done over a large area of the bidet or basin. The DNA of two different individuals may have been physically separate and have been deposited at different times. As Steffanoni said in her evidence, the source of the DNA cannot be known. The time of deposition cannot be known. All we know is that the DNA of Knox and Kercher were present on the area that was swabbed, there is no evidence that they were co-located.
There is no reason to doubt that any "mixing" of the DNA was done by the sample collection method of swabbing (rubbing) a large area of the entire surface with one swab.

In terms of characterizing any of the falsehoods of the guilters, including those about luminol and DNA, while possibly they are due to "confirmation bias", it is also possible that they are due to "intentional misrepresentations" ("lies").

"Confirmation bias" may imply "good faith" on the part of a person with an unfortunate psychological state or false belief system. "Intentional misrepresentations" would imply "bad faith" - deception - on the part of a person possibly motivated by some agenda.

Examples of such agendas may include, but not be limited to, a desire to entertain some readers of the falsehoods, to defame Knox, to annoy those seen as supporters of Knox, or even to promote some commercial enterprise. This last motivation is the likely explanation for the falsehoods seen in the tabloids "reporting" on the Knox - Sollecito case.

To determine "why someone is spreading lies {falsehoods}, whether or not they’re doing it deliberately, is a tricky enterprise. There are plenty of reasons people create conspiracy theories....{In one case} ... a writer for a shock site ... {constructed} stories that the outlet’s leaders saw as elaborate entertainment."*

*Paraphrased from a Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.56e4611ba819
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 03:42 PM   #909
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
There is also the obvious: some people are just not bright enough to figure things out even when explained to them in simple terms like "TMB negative means no blood was detected". They can't quite connect "no blood detected" with "the print wasn't in blood".

This is when the guilters chime in with "but luminol is way more sensitive to blood than TMB!" Which is why forensic scientists use luminol to double check TMB negative samples for blood. Oh, wait...…..

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th July 2018 at 04:08 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 05:23 PM   #910
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,484
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is also the obvious: some people are just not bright enough to figure things out even when explained to them in simple terms like "TMB negative means no blood was detected". They can't quite connect "no blood detected" with "the print wasn't in blood".

This is when the guilters chime in with "but luminol is way more sensitive to blood than TMB!" Which is why forensic scientists use luminol to double check TMB negative samples for blood. Oh, wait...…..
And while all that is interesting and true. It shouldn't make one bit of difference as this is Amanda's domicile. There is every reason to expect to find Amanda's and Meredith's DNA throughout the cottage as much as you would expect to find their belongings
__________________
“ 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 05:45 PM   #911
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
And while all that is interesting and true. It shouldn't make one bit of difference as this is Amanda's domicile. There is every reason to expect to find Amanda's and Meredith's DNA throughout the cottage as much as you would expect to find their belongings
Exactly. Yet certain people seem to have great difficulty processing that fact. They had to resort to the "mixed blood" and the Amanda was "bleeding profusely at the same time" lie. I've not seen a single forensic expert, outside of Garofano, who ever supported that nonsense.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 08:15 PM   #912
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,484
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly. Yet certain people seem to have great difficulty processing that fact. They had to resort to the "mixed blood" and the Amanda was "bleeding profusely at the same time" lie. I've not seen a single forensic expert, outside of Garofano, who ever supported that nonsense.
I think most people are logically impaired. Seriously, the majority of people simply have NEVER learned critical thinking. They don't understand that it only requires a simple flaw for a proposition to fail.

There is a reason Rudy's DNA at the cottage is incriminating and even with him, it is unnecessary for conviction. It's because he has no history of being upstairs at the cottage. His DNA is not supposed to be there.

The same cannot be said about Amanda. Finding her DNA is neither incriminating or exculpatory. It only proves Amanda had been in the cottage, not when. We know she was in the cottage before and after the murder. The proposition is to find evidence to prove she was there when the murder occurred. And the DNA won't do.

Why don't they get this simple reasoning?
__________________
“ 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:11 AM   #913
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I think most people are logically impaired. Seriously, the majority of people simply have NEVER learned critical thinking. They don't understand that it only requires a simple flaw for a proposition to fail.

There is a reason Rudy's DNA at the cottage is incriminating and even with him, it is unnecessary for conviction. It's because he has no history of being upstairs at the cottage. His DNA is not supposed to be there.

The same cannot be said about Amanda. Finding her DNA is neither incriminating or exculpatory. It only proves Amanda had been in the cottage, not when. We know she was in the cottage before and after the murder. The proposition is to find evidence to prove she was there when the murder occurred. And the DNA won't do.

Why don't they get this simple reasoning?
If the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk why do PGP need to resort to arguments which reek of desperation such as making Amanda's DNA in a cottage where she lived sound incriminating.
Welshman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:10 AM   #914
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,045
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
If the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk why do PGP need to resort to arguments which reek of desperation such as making Amanda's DNA in a cottage where she lived sound incriminating.
Perhaps because they're foolish enough to listen to the prosecution's claims instead of doing their own research or listen to other experts who have given their opinions on the prosecution's claims. As AC said, many seem to lack critical thought skills, or their confirmation bias overwhelms their ability to reason things.

For example, the claim that the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom must be mixed blood because the RFU values for Amanda's DNA is the same or greater than Meredith's, which came from blood. But this ignores the fact that Meredith's blood traces where highly diluted and Amanda's DNA likely came from saliva, which is rich in DNA. The prosecution's conclusion is not sustainable but don't tell that to the PGP, they don't want to hear it.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:28 AM   #915
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,477
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I think most people are logically impaired. Seriously, the majority of people simply have NEVER learned critical thinking. They don't understand that it only requires a simple flaw for a proposition to fail.

There is a reason Rudy's DNA at the cottage is incriminating and even with him, it is unnecessary for conviction. It's because he has no history of being upstairs at the cottage. His DNA is not supposed to be there.

The same cannot be said about Amanda. Finding her DNA is neither incriminating or exculpatory. It only proves Amanda had been in the cottage, not when. We know she was in the cottage before and after the murder. The proposition is to find evidence to prove she was there when the murder occurred. And the DNA won't do.

Why don't they get this simple reasoning?
It's not relevant this days what the past PR-guilt campaign broadcast or didn't broadcast.

In 2009, the first Italian court thought that DNA could be date-stamped, so that Knox's DNA found in the bathroom she'd shared for weeks with the victim was somehow incriminating. Judge Massei implied as much.

While at the same time ruling that it was useless to test the presumed semen stain found on the pillow under the victims hips, on the grounds that it could have been her boyfriend's, but adding that DNA could not be date-stamped.

At this point the on-line guilters are doing a disappearing act. The real issue is that in 2009, 2013 and 2014 Italian courts thought that Knox's DNA found in that bathroom was somehow incriminating.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:47 AM   #916
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's not relevant this days what the past PR-guilt campaign broadcast or didn't broadcast.

In 2009, the first Italian court thought that DNA could be date-stamped, so that Knox's DNA found in the bathroom she'd shared for weeks with the victim was somehow incriminating. Judge Massei implied as much.

While at the same time ruling that it was useless to test the presumed semen stain found on the pillow under the victims hips, on the grounds that it could have been her boyfriend's, but adding that DNA could not be date-stamped.

At this point the on-line guilters are doing a disappearing act. The real issue is that in 2009, 2013 and 2014 Italian courts thought that Knox's DNA found in that bathroom was somehow incriminating.
Testing it would have determined whether it was Silenzi's or not so that reasoning was ridiculous.

Additionally, I think Meredith used condoms. Did the judge bother asking Silenzi if he and Meredith habitually used condoms before rendering his illogical decision?

Last edited by Stacyhs; Yesterday at 10:51 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:31 PM   #917
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,484
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Perhaps because they're foolish enough to listen to the prosecution's claims instead of doing their own research or listen to other experts who have given their opinions on the prosecution's claims. As AC said, many seem to lack critical thought skills, or their confirmation bias overwhelms their ability to reason things.

For example, the claim that the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom must be mixed blood because the RFU values for Amanda's DNA is the same or greater than Meredith's, which came from blood. But this ignores the fact that Meredith's blood traces where highly diluted and Amanda's DNA likely came from saliva, which is rich in DNA. The prosecution's conclusion is not sustainable but don't tell that to the PGP, they don't want to hear it.
Precisely.

You could bleed a pint of blood and still leave less DNA than spittle from brushing your teeth. (Probably an exaggeration). All we really know is that Amanda's and Meredith's DNA was present in their shared bathroom. The RFU values tell us nothing.

But that doesn't fit their narrative.
__________________
“ 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.