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

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


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

Reply
Old 27th January 2020, 08:20 AM   #841
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,127
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Fat chance that would result in anything seeing how it's been 13 years. Does anyone seriously think the cops would admit they did anything wrong after all this time? Nah...they'd cover their own asses just like they did then.



That would entail curtailing the police using the "s/he was only a witness to the facts and not a suspect" ploy they used. They knew exactly what they were doing: they didn't want her to have a lawyer present just as they deliberately didn't want to record the interrogation.
You make a good point. But there is a misunderstanding.

The ECHR case-law does not call for any particular result of an independent effective investigation of a credible claim of mistreatment by the authorities.

Under the ECHR's case-law, with which by treaty and by its Constitution Italy is solemnly obligated to comply, the independent effective investigation of the credible claim of mistreatment is required.

In its judgment, the ECHR pointed out that the Boninsegna court trial of Amanda Knox on the charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini was not an independent effective investigation of Knox's credible claim of mistreatment by the authorities. Therefore, no such investigation has ever been launched by Italy. Thus, there was a violation of Convention Article 3 (procedural limb) by Italy, as found by the ECHR and apparently now agreed by Italy, based on its summary of the case in the 10 January 2020 communication to the CoM.

The questions then, before Italy and the CoM (which supervises the execution of judgments of the ECHR), are how to: 1) redress the effects of the violation of Article 3 for this case and 2) prevent similar violations in the future.
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 27th January 2020, 10:06 AM   #842
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,460
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Under the ECHR's case-law, with which by treaty and by its Constitution Italy is solemnly obligated to comply, the independent effective investigation of the credible claim of mistreatment is required.
By what coercive means does the Council of Europe force Italy to "solemnly comply"? Does it deploy the Swiss Guard from The Vatican?

In the absence of some international judge issuing a bench warrant for someone's arrest if they don't comply, what's to prevent Italy from simply letting this sit unseen to?

Harsh language?
__________________
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 27th January 2020, 11:31 AM   #843
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
You make a good point. But there is a misunderstanding.

The ECHR case-law does not call for any particular result of an independent effective investigation of a credible claim of mistreatment by the authorities.

Under the ECHR's case-law, with which by treaty and by its Constitution Italy is solemnly obligated to comply, the independent effective investigation of the credible claim of mistreatment is required.

In its judgment, the ECHR pointed out that the Boninsegna court trial of Amanda Knox on the charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini was not an independent effective investigation of Knox's credible claim of mistreatment by the authorities. Therefore, no such investigation has ever been launched by Italy. Thus, there was a violation of Convention Article 3 (procedural limb) by Italy, as found by the ECHR and apparently now agreed by Italy, based on its summary of the case in the 10 January 2020 communication to the CoM.

The questions then, before Italy and the CoM (which supervises the execution of judgments of the ECHR), are how to: 1) redress the effects of the violation of Article 3 for this case and 2) prevent similar violations in the future.
From what little I've read about Italy's responsibilities as a result of a favourable judgement for Amanda, I was under the impression that they had to consult Amanda in the first place to see if any particular solution would be acceptable. Italy couldn't just vacate the charge (though it may be desirable) or decide on a revision on there own volition, they have to offer a solution to Amanda for her discretion as to whether it would be acceptable or not, since she was the individual wronged. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's Amanda who calls the shots now.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 27th January 2020, 11:58 AM   #844
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,127
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
From what little I've read about Italy's responsibilities as a result of a favourable judgement for Amanda, I was under the impression that they had to consult Amanda in the first place to see if any particular solution would be acceptable. Italy couldn't just vacate the charge (though it may be desirable) or decide on a revision on there own volition, they have to offer a solution to Amanda for her discretion as to whether it would be acceptable or not, since she was the individual wronged. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's Amanda who calls the shots now.

Hoots
I don't know whether or not this is a legal requirement. I also don't know whether this may or may not be the usual procedure.

I do know that under the CoE - CoM rules relating to supervision of the execution of judgments of the ECHR, the applicant (that would be Amanda Knox) has the right to communicate in writing to the CoM about the measures that the State (that is, Italy) proposes or is taking or not taking to fulfill its obligations relating to individual and general measures.

In other words, the State and the Applicant communicate through the CoM under the CoM rules. There may also be direct communications between the Applicant and the State. For example, IIRC, Knox's lawyer was quoted in the media some months ago that he was filling out forms from the Italian government for the payment of the Just Satisfaction to her. I believe that, should she wish, her lawyer could file a request for revision with the Perugia Court of Appeal based on the final ECHR judgment without waiting for any information from the Italian government. A legal strategy or personal preference may perhaps motivate a delay in filing until there is an Action Plan from 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 27th January 2020, 12:07 PM   #845
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I don't know whether or not this is a legal requirement. I also don't know whether this may or may not be the usual procedure.

I do know that under the CoE - CoM rules relating to supervision of the execution of judgments of the ECHR, the applicant (that would be Amanda Knox) has the right to communicate in writing to the CoM about the measures that the State (that is, Italy) proposes or is taking or not taking to fulfill its obligations relating to individual and general measures.

In other words, the State and the Applicant communicate through the CoM under the CoM rules. There may also be direct communications between the Applicant and the State. For example, IIRC, Knox's lawyer was quoted in the media some months ago that he was filling out forms from the Italian government for the payment of the Just Satisfaction to her. I believe that, should she wish, her lawyer could file a request for revision with the Perugia Court of Appeal based on the final ECHR judgment without waiting for any information from the Italian government. A legal strategy or personal preference may perhaps motivate a delay in filing until there is an Action Plan from Italy.
What I said above was my understanding from various snippets of ECHR sources prior to the judgement of last year. I'll try to fish out these sources if I can.

In the meantime here is a YouTube link explaining Italy's obligations in the circumstances:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UybuIA5rSo

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Last edited by TomG; 27th January 2020 at 12:33 PM. Reason: Additional link
TomG 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 27th January 2020, 12:56 PM   #846
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,999
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As far as I know, Knox has not requested a revision trial even though it's pretty apparent the conviction would be quashed. Perhaps she's waiting until Italy files their plan to see what they plan to do first. She may not need to.
A revision trial is the last thing she wants for the only possible verdict once again in the face of irrefutable evidence is 'guilty', as charged. Perhaps even an increase in the sentence up to its maximum six years.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ogonblick i sander,
vilken trost vad an som kommer pa! ~ L Sandell
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:03 PM   #847
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,127
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
What I said above was my understanding from various snippets of ECHR sources prior to the judgement of last year. I'll try to fish out these sources if I can.

In the meantime here is a YouTube link explaining Italy's obligations in the circumstances:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UybuIA5rSo

Hoots
TomG, thanks for pointing out that YouTube video, which provides an overview of the CoM's supervisory role and the obligations of the Respondent State to comply with a final ECHR judgment through individual measures, the redress (insofar as possible) the effects of the violations on the Applicant, and through general measures, intended to prevent any future repetition of the violations on anyone.

One point from the video that may not have been emphasized in posts on ISF is that not only the Applicant, but also human-rights NGOs are allowed to comment on the Action Plan or Action Report of the Respondent State by communications to the CoM. Usually, for the several cases against Italy that I have read, the NGO communications have related to perceived deficiencies in the efficacy and robustness of the general measures proposed by the State.
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 27th January 2020, 02:38 PM   #848
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,012
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A revision trial is the last thing she wants for the only possible verdict once again in the face of irrefutable evidence is 'guilty', as charged. Perhaps even an increase in the sentence up to its maximum six years.
How do you figure?

You have to throw out the interrogation. The ECHR determined that Italy violated Amanda's right to counsel and provided an unbiased interpreter in the interrogation which resulted in callunia against Patrick.

Without the interrogation statement, how does one prove the Callunia against Patrick? Keep in mind that hours later Knox retracted her statement.

I can understand why Knox might fear that Italy is unreliable and they might screw with her so more. But I can't imagine a situation where Knox could be convicted of callunia. Without the statement resulting from the interrogation, there is no callunia.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 27th January 2020 at 03:03 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:50 PM   #849
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,612
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A revision trial is the last thing she wants for the only possible verdict once again in the face of irrefutable evidence is 'guilty', as charged. Perhaps even an increase in the sentence up to its maximum six years.


L.M.A.O.

You really don't understand this case at all, do you?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 03:12 PM   #850
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,012
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
L.M.A.O.

You really don't understand this case at all, do you?
It's like there is no logic cpu in there at all.

The ONLY place you can claim that Amanda committed callunia was in the statements made during the interrogation which the ECHR ruled was a violation of Amanda's rights. The statement is not only the fruit of the poisonous tree, it's the tree.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
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 27th January 2020, 03:33 PM   #851
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,127
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
How do you figure?

You have to throw out the interrogation. The ECHR determined that Italy violated Amanda's right to counsel and provided an unbiased interpreter in the interrogation which resulted in callunia against Patrick.

Without the interrogation statement how does one prove the Callunia against Patrick? Keep in mind that hours later Knox retracted her statement.

I can understand why Knox might fear that Italy is unreliable and they might screw with her so more. But I can't imagine a situation where Knox could be convicted of callunia. Without the statement resulting from the interrogation, there is no callunia.
acbytesla, you are correct that the calunnia case would, under Italian law, be dismissed (CPP Article 529) or judged as an acquittal (CPP Article 530), if and when brought to a revision hearing, because the statements forming the basis of the alleged calunnia would be inadmissible in accordance with the ECHR final judgment against Italy.


What may require some clarification is the nature of the revision hearing under Italian law. It is not a complete retrial of a case, but only a review of the parts of the case that have been brought into question, and which would support a dismissal under one of three CPP articles: Article 529, dismissal for no grounds to prosecute; Article 530, judgment of acquittal; or Article 531, the charges were beyond the statute of limitations at the time of the original trial. If the arguments of the appellant's request do not support a discharge under one of these three CPP articles, the request will be ruled inadmissible in accordance with CPP Article 634.

Under Italian law, CPP Articles 631 and 634, a revision hearing will not even be held unless there is clear evidence that the appellant will be discharged under one of those CPP articles (529, 530, or 531). Here is the Italian law:

Quote:
Articolo 631 Codice di procedura penale
(D.P.R. 22 settembre 1988, n. 477)
[Aggiornato al 09/08/2019]

Limiti della revisione

1. Gli elementi in base ai quali si chiede la revisione devono, a pena d'inammissibilità della domanda, essere tali da dimostrare, se accertati, che il condannato deve essere prosciolto a norma degli articoli 529, 530 o 531.

Articolo 634 Codice di procedura penale
(D.P.R. 22 settembre 1988, n. 477)
[Aggiornato al 09/08/2019]

Declaratoria d'inammissibilità

1. Quando la richiesta è proposta fuori delle ipotesi previste dagli articoli 629 e 630 o senza l'osservanza delle disposizioni previste dagli articoli 631, 632, 633, 641 ovvero risulta manifestamente infondata, la corte di appello anche di ufficio dichiara con ordinanza l'inammissibilità e può condannare il privato che ha proposto la richiesta al pagamento a favore della cassa delle ammende di una somma da duecentocinquantotto euro a duemilasessantacinque euro.

2. L'ordinanza è notificata al condannato e a colui che ha proposto la richiesta, i quali possono ricorrere per cassazione. In caso di accoglimento del ricorso, la Corte di cassazione rinvia il giudizio di revisione ad altra corte di appello individuata secondo i criteri di cui all'articolo 11.
Google translation with my help using Gialuz et al.'s translation and Collins Reverso:


Article 631 Code of Criminal Procedure
(D.P.R. 22 September 1988, n. 477)
[Updated on 09/08/2019]

Limitations to revision

1. The arguments supporting the request for revision must, under penalty of inadmissibility of the request for revision, be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed in accordance with Articles 529, 530 or 531.

Article 634 Code of Criminal Procedure
(D.P.R. 22 September 1988, n. 477)
[Updated on 09/08/2019]

Declaration of inadmissibility {of the request for revision}

1. If the request {for revision} is submitted for reasons other than those provided for in articles 629 and 630 or it is submitted without complying with the provisions of articles 631, 632, 633, 641, or if it is manifestly groundless, the Court of Appeal shall issue an order declaring, also ex officio, the inadmissibility of the request, and may condemn the private individual who submitted the request to pay fines in the amount of EUR 258 to ER 2065.

2. The order shall be served on the convicted person and to the person who submitted the request, who can appeal in Cassation. If the appeal in Cassation is accepted, the Court of Cassation shall refer the revision hearing to another Court of Appeal identified according to the criteria referred to in Article 11.

To expand on the above, no one is convicted, re-convicted, or re-sentenced to a longer prison term as the result of a revision hearing. The revision process results either in the convicted person being discharged under one of the CPP Article 529, 530, or 531, or, if the grounds for discharge are not provable, remaining convicted under the sentence imposed by the original trial. Under Italian Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011, a request for revision must be accepted to satisfy a final judgment of the ECHR where a reopening of proceedings is required. It would be a violation of the Italian Constitution, Article 10, and its treaty obligations, for Italy not to comply.
____

Note that CPP Article 11 is the law that gives the CSC the authority to refer a case to a Court of Appeal in a district that is not the district where the conviction occurred. Thus, if a Court of Appeal in Perugia unfairly refused a request for revision, under law, an appeal to the CSC could get the request reviewed in a different jurisdiction. Since Knox's calunnia conviction is solely based on her statements, and their admissibility is a matter of law, apparently the CSC could itself quash a Court of Appeal finding of the request for revision inadmissible and dismiss the conviction, under CPP Article 620.

Sources for the Italian texts:

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...iv/art631.html

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...iv/art634.html

Last edited by Numbers; 27th January 2020 at 04:06 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 27th January 2020, 04:09 PM   #852
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,460
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A revision trial is the last thing she wants for the only possible verdict once again in the face of irrefutable evidence is 'guilty', as charged. Perhaps even an increase in the sentence up to its maximum six years.
This makes no sense, none at all. The "evidence" is not only refutable, with the ECHR ruling, to which Italy is bound to by treaty, it has been refuted.

Unless you're now going to argue that a Mafia-inspired, Masonic-funded PR campaign hi-jacked the Council of Europe..... there's no telling what you're going to say next.
__________________
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 27th January 2020, 05:03 PM   #853
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 10,425
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A revision trial is the last thing she wants for the only possible verdict once again in the face of irrefutable evidence is 'guilty', as charged. Perhaps even an increase in the sentence up to its maximum six years.
The first part of this ridiculous post has already been dealt with. As what Knox said during the interrogation is inadmissible, which was the entire callunia case against her, then exactly what do you think the prosecution could present as evidence?

As for the highlighted part, an appeal court cannot increase a sentence.

A revision trial falls under the Appellate Court:

Quote:
In addition to such mechanisms, the Italian legal system also provides extraordinary appellate remedies, which can be used to appeal against decisions that have become final.

The first remedy is that of revision, which can be lodged before the Court of
Appeal in favor of the convicted person in order to obtain the reopening of the criminal proceedings.
This can be used if certain conditions provided by the law are in place, with the purpose of redressing a judicial error (Arts. 629 ff. Code). Such a remedy may be lodged only against judgements of conviction, while it is not possible to claim the revision of acquittals (the so-called revision in pejus).
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download...le-file/498175

Quote:
In case the appeal is lodged by a defendant, a second-degree Court cannot:

order penalties more serious in kind or quantity;
apply new or more serious measures;
https://www.mondaq.com/italy/Crimina...eal-A-Sentence

Try again.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 27th January 2020 at 05:04 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 27th January 2020, 11:40 PM   #854
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,127
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The first part of this ridiculous post has already been dealt with. As what Knox said during the interrogation is inadmissible, which was the entire callunia case against her, then exactly what do you think the prosecution could present as evidence?

As for the highlighted part, an appeal court cannot increase a sentence.

A revision trial falls under the Appellate Court:


https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download...le-file/498175


https://www.mondaq.com/italy/Crimina...eal-A-Sentence

Try again.
Stacyhs, your second quote is correct regarding an ordinary appeal when the only appellant is the accused. An ordinary appeal is one that occurs while the accused is not yet finally convicted (CPP Article 533) or finally acquitted (CPP Article 530) or finally dismissed in some other way, such as when the judge finds that the prosecution should never have been started or continued (CPP Article 529) or that the charge is extinct because of the statute of limitations (CPP Article 531). The law defining the limitations on the judgment for an ordinary appeal when the accused is the only appellant is CPP Article 597 paragraph 3.

However, a request for revision is an extra-ordinary appeal: it can only be made by either a finally convicted person* or the chief prosecutor of a court of appeal or both (CPP Article 632).

A final acquittal or dismissal is not subject to either an ordinary or an extraordinary appeal. It is absolutely final under Italian law and may not be retried in any way. (CPP Articles 648 and 649)

A final conviction is not subject to an ordinary appeal or to any ordinary retrial, but it may be quashed by a revision of the judgment of conviction (CPP Articles 648, 649, and 629).

For a final conviction two types of extra-ordinary appeals are allowed, one only to correct clerical or factual error and another, revision, intended to reverse provable miscarriages of justice:

1. A finally convicted person is allowed to submit a request for the rectification of a clerical or factual error contained in a decision of the Court of Cassation (CSC), under CPP Article 625-bis. The Court of Cassation decides whether to accept the appeal, and if it accepts the request, decides how to rectify the error. This procedure is not intended to correct a miscarriage of justice, but only a clerical or factual error.

2. A finally convicted person* or chief prosecutor (but not a finally acquitted or dismissed person) is allowed to submit a request for revision of a judgment of final conviction (CPP Articles 629 and 632). The request for revision must claim that the judgment of conviction was a miscarriage of justice based on grounds given in CPP Article 630 or Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011 (ECHR judgment of an unfair trial). The arguments in the request for revision must prove, if ascertained, that the finally convicted person should be dismissed under CPP Article 529, 530, or 531 (CPP Article 631); the request for revision is inadmissible if this requirement is not satisfied.

The request for revision is submitted to the Court of Appeal where the final conviction occurred or as otherwise determined by law (CPP Article 633).

Thus, there are two judicial hearing phases to a request for revision: 1) the request is reviewed for admissibility and 2) if the request is admissible, the evidence or information alleging that the finally convicted person should be dismissed in accordance with CPP Article 631 is reviewed by the judge.

If the review finds that the evidence or information supporting dismissal is true, the judge revokes the judgment of conviction and orders the dismissal of the formerly convicted person, specifying the cause in the operative part of the judgment (CPP Article 637).

If the review finds that the evidence or information supporting dismissal is not true (not convincing), the final conviction and any sentence remain in place with no changes. There can be no increase in the sentence or change in the definition of the crime, because that would be in violation of CPP Article 649. However, in the case of the rejection of the request for revision, the judge shall sentence the private party (not the prosecutor) who submitted it to the payment of the costs of the proceedings (CPP Article 637).

*The request may be made by the finally convicted person's next of kin or guardian, or, if the finally convicted person is deceased, by his heir or next of kin.
_____
In summary, it is true that a revision hearing cannot lawfully increase the sentence or redefine the final conviction of the finally convicted person for whom revision is sought. However, the reason under Italian law is not CPP Article 597 paragraph 3, which applies only to ordinary appeals. The reason instead is CPP Articles 648, 649, and 629, which define final judgments, the prohibition of double jeopardy (under Italian law), and the revision of judgments of final conviction (an extra-ordinary appeal, that is, one allowed after double jeopardy would apply), respectively.

Last edited by Numbers; Yesterday at 12:11 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 27th January 2020, 11:42 PM   #855
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,198
It seems the Sheriff's dept in Colorado is reading Vixen posts: https://twitter.com/SheriffAlert/sta...244749315?s=20
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 Yesterday, 12:31 AM   #856
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 10,425
Numbers, thanks for the clarification. Either way, in a revision or regular appeal, the judge cannot increase the original sentence so Vixen is still wrong. Color me shocked.
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, 12:34 AM   #857
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 10,425
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
It seems the Sheriff's dept in Colorado is reading Vixen posts: https://twitter.com/SheriffAlert/sta...244749315?s=20
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, 09:40 AM   #858
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,460
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The first part of this ridiculous post has already been dealt with. As what Knox said during the interrogation is inadmissible, which was the entire callunia case against her, then exactly what do you think the prosecution could present as evidence?
It was LondonJohn who first drew the connection between guilter-nutters and Baghdad Bob. Evidence that that connection is hardwired into the remaining nutters continues.

It does not matter for them what the Italian courts find, or what the ECHR rules, the nutters continue to shout....

"THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR GUILT IS OVERWHELMING AND DEFINITIVE...."

.... as if shouting that masks that the reality is quite the opposite. This is, as LJ pointed out, the tactic Baghdad Bob used to try to convince reporters that his side was winning.

There is no reliable evidence connecting AK and/or RS to the murder, and the stuff that is reliable points only to Rudy Guede, including his admission he'd been in the room at TOD.

I guess if I shout that, then the nutters will accept shouting as proof.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; Yesterday at 09:41 AM.
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, 10:16 AM   #859
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,127
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Numbers, thanks for the clarification. Either way, in a revision or regular appeal, the judge cannot increase the original sentence so Vixen is still wrong. Color me shocked.
Much of Italian law is complicated by the fact that, within the legal time limits, prosecutors can appeal acquittals and other dismissals except those delivered by the CSC. Thus, the "finality" and "double jeopardy" aspects of criminal court judgments are more complicated in Italy than in the US. And while appeals by a convicted person are allowed in the US and somewhat straight-forward, in Italy, the appeals after a final conviction are "extra-ordinary" and different from the appeals, submitted before the legal time limit, after "provisional" conviction.

Last edited by Numbers; Yesterday at 10:25 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 Yesterday, 11:17 AM   #860
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It does not matter for them what the Italian courts find, or what the ECHR rules, the nutters continue to shout....

"THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR GUILT IS OVERWHELMING AND DEFINITIVE...."
Yet if you ask them to provide a coherent narrative and timeline involving K&S in the murder of Meredith they don't have a clue. I've asked Rag multiple times to do this to nil results.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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, 11:47 AM   #861
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,460
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Yet if you ask them to provide a coherent narrative and timeline involving K&S in the murder of Meredith they don't have a clue. I've asked Rag multiple times to do this to nil results.

Hoots
Quite literally, the way the Nencini court re-convicted (provisionally) in 2014 was to allow for the widest window for time-of-death as possible. Beyond reasonableness.

Nutters could then take each item of "evidence" and put it onto a timetime either very early or very late. It never seemed to occur to them that scattering tidbits of factoids onto different places on this wide window of TOD actually made the innocence case!!!!

It's why the final exonerating court tried to make it simple. Even if all that factoid stuff had been true, even if, none of it made up for the lack of forensics of AK or RS within the murderroom. At best, even if those factoids had been true, all it proved was that AK and RS had been in another part of the cottage AT A LATER TIME, which no one denies.

It's no wonder Harry Rag/The Machine refuses to put factoids to a timeline. The attempt actually proves the innocence case.

Machiavelli? His refusal to make a timeline was because he saw this as a Masonic war - and didn't want to telegraph to his enemy what the so-called reality was. You had to have been a dietrological initiate to know how to handle this secretive proof of guilt.
__________________
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, 11:23 PM   #862
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,127
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Yet if you ask them to provide a coherent narrative and timeline involving K&S in the murder of Meredith they don't have a clue. I've asked Rag multiple times to do this to nil results.

Hoots
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Quite literally, the way the Nencini court re-convicted (provisionally) in 2014 was to allow for the widest window for time-of-death as possible. Beyond reasonableness.

Nutters could then take each item of "evidence" and put it onto a timetime either very early or very late. It never seemed to occur to them that scattering tidbits of factoids onto different places on this wide window of TOD actually made the innocence case!!!!

It's why the final exonerating court tried to make it simple. Even if all that factoid stuff had been true, even if, none of it made up for the lack of forensics of AK or RS within the murderroom. At best, even if those factoids had been true, all it proved was that AK and RS had been in another part of the cottage AT A LATER TIME, which no one denies.

It's no wonder Harry Rag/The Machine refuses to put factoids to a timeline. The attempt actually proves the innocence case.

Machiavelli? His refusal to make a timeline was because he saw this as a Masonic war - and didn't want to telegraph to his enemy what the so-called reality was. You had to have been a dietrological initiate to know how to handle this secretive proof of guilt.
When a person or a government attempts to justify wrongful acts, it should not be surprising that they use arguments that mix falsehoods, misstatements, half-truths and misunderstandings into an incoherent mess.

Readers here may recall that some pro-guilt posters have claimed that Amanda Knox's application to the ECHR would be ruled inadmissible because it had been filed past the six-month deadline. However, those PGP apparently were calculating the six months starting from the day the short-form verdict was delivered. The ECHR itself starts the calculation of the six months starting from the day the motivation report is delivered to the applicant or the applicant's lawyer. The ECHR's method of calculating the time limit is presented online and easily found*. Since Knox v. Italy was not ruled inadmissible for the application being untimely, we can be sure that the claim by some PGP that is was untimely was indeed false.

Readers here may not be aware that the Italian government, in one of its responses to the ECHR, claimed that Knox's application was actually premature - delivered before there was a final domestic judgment for the charge of calunnia against Lumumba. Italy presented an argument implying that the final calunnia conviction delivered by the Chieffi CSC panel affirming the Hellmann Court of Appeal judgment of conviction for calunnia was not a final judgment. Rather, Italy claimed that the calunnia case continued through the Nencini Court of Appeal judgment, although that pertained exclusively to the charge of aggravating circumstances. The ECHR rejected Italy's argument. While the ECHR was not so undiplomatic as to call the Italian government's argument false and incoherent, the ECHR clearly found it contrary to the facts.

Here's an excerpt from the ECHR's final judgment of Knox v. Italy with Italy's claim that Knox's application was submitted prematurely and the ECHR's dismissal of that claim. Translation by Google with help from me and Collins Reverso.

Quote:
109. The Government submitted that, at the time of the introduction of the application, on 24 November 2013, the applicant's conviction for malicious false accusation {calunnia} was not final and that, therefore, this part of the complaint should be declared inadmissible.

110. The Court reiterates that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is assessed, with certain exceptions, at the date of submission of the application to the Court (Baumann v. France, No. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001- V (extracts)).

111. However, it also recalls that it tolerates the completion of the last level of domestic remedies shortly after the filing of the application, but before it is called upon to decide on the admissibility of the application (Zalyan et al. Armenia, Nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, March 17, 2016, and Škorjanec v. Croatia, No. 25536/14, § 44, March 28, 2017).

112. In any event, in the present case, the Court notes that the conviction in question was confirmed by the judgment of the Court of Cassation filed on 18 June 2013, at the end of three degrees of jurisdiction, and that the reference to the {Nencini} Assize Court of Appeal concerned only the existence of the aggravating circumstance.

113. In view of the foregoing, the objection raised by the Government must be rejected.

* https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/A..._guide_ENG.pdf

Quote:
113.The six-month period starts running from the date on which the applicant and/or his or her representative has sufficient knowledge of the final domestic decision (Koç and Tosun v.Turkey (dec.)).
The short-form verdict from an Italian court judgment does not provide "sufficient knowledge" of the final domestic decision, because the reasoning contained in the motivation report is necessary to understand and criticize the grounds of the verdict in an ECHR application. Even under Italian practice, appeals are submitted only after the motivation report is provided to the accused and/or the accused's lawyer, because the appeal arguments must criticize the grounds of the verdict, not merely the verdict.
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
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 05:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.