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 24th June 2019, 11:43 PM   #281
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
But did Amanda really need Raffaele's alibi if it was a tactic to that effect? There is the same poverty of evidence against Amanda as there is for Raffaele. It seems to me that the separation tactic wasn't really required in the final analysis.

Hoots.
The prosecution presented stronger evidence against Sollecito than Knox; the DNA on the bra hook, the knife with the victim's DNA on the blade found in his apartment, his bloody foot print on the bathmat. Knox was important as Sollecito's alibi.

By presenting the case as a joint enterprise this allowed evidence against each to be used against all. Almost like a magic trick, this is all the evidence against Guede, they acted in participation with Guede, Guede is guilty therefore Knox and Sollecito are. This is the evidence against Sollecito therefore Knox is guilty.

If we come down to the evidence against Knox there is the ineligible 'confession' of her being present when Lumumba killed the victim. This was brought in by prosecuting for callunia in the same trial. Knox's DNA in her own home. The 'faked' break in. Knox's DNA on the handle of the alleged murder weapon.

If the prosecution split off Sollecito then they would have had to have explained the evidence against Sollecito which would be exonerating for Knox.
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 25th June 2019, 08:21 AM   #282
Wilson85
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 44
Grand Chamber Panel’s decisions

Requests for referral submitted by the Government:
Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13), judgment of 24 January 2019
> Request for referral rejected

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?...443174-8477085

Last edited by Wilson85; 25th June 2019 at 08:23 AM.
Wilson85 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 25th June 2019, 09:22 AM   #283
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Wilson85 View Post
Grand Chamber Panel’s decisions

Requests for referral submitted by the Government:
Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13), judgment of 24 January 2019
> Request for referral rejected

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?...443174-8477085
The next step is for Italy to create an Action Plan to redress its violations, which according to ECHR case-law should return the victim of the violations (Amanda) to her situation before the violations occurred. This Action Plan must be presented to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. In practice, the Action Plan is filed with the Deputies of the CoM in charge of supervision of the fulfillment of ECHR judgments.

"Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

In accordance with Article 46 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11, the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This work is carried out mainly at four regular meetings (DH meetings) every year.

The Committee of Ministers' essential function is to ensure that member states comply with the judgments and certain decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Committee completes each case by adopting a final resolution. In some cases, interim resolutions may prove appropriate. Both kinds of Resolutions are public."

Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cm/execut...59%22:[0]}

Last edited by Numbers; 25th June 2019 at 09:57 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 25th June 2019, 09:53 AM   #284
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The next step is for Italy to create an Action Plan to redress its violations, which according to ECHR case-law should return the victim of the violations (Amanda) to her situation before the violations occurred. This Action Plan must be presented to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. In practice, the Action Plan is filed with the Deputies of the CoM in charge of supervision of the fulfillment of ECHR judgments.

"Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

In accordance with Article 46 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11, the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This work is carried out mainly at four regular meetings (DH meetings) every year.

The Committee of Ministers' essential function is to ensure that member states comply with the judgments and certain decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Committee completes each case by adopting a final resolution. In some cases, interim resolutions may prove appropriate. Both kinds of Resolutions are public."

Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cm/execut...59%22:[0]}
Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments:

https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/resu...000016806dd2a5

Last edited by Numbers; 25th June 2019 at 09:57 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 25th June 2019, 09:54 AM   #285
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Excellent news regarding the ECHR referral. Let's see what Italy does. Now that the judgment is final, Amanda can request a revision trial if she so chooses, correct? Also, can Italy simply dismiss the calunnia judgment?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 25th June 2019 at 10:04 AM.
Stacyhs 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 25th June 2019, 10:16 AM   #286
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Excellent news regarding the ECHR referral. Let's see what Italy does. Now that the judgment is final, Amanda can request a revision trial if she so chooses, correct? Also, can Italy simply dismiss the calunnia judgment?
.... and if Italy does nothing, does that mean that a "statute of limitations" kicks in where Italy must simply vacate the conviction?
__________________
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 25th June 2019, 10:32 AM   #287
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
.... and if Italy does nothing, does that mean that a "statute of limitations" kicks in where Italy must simply vacate the conviction?
As I am interpreting things...

I believe Italy is required to submit an Action Plan within six months of this final decision. However, I don't think there is a requirement to take action against the current calunnia conviction unless Amanda requests a revision. If that's true, and if Amanda does nothing, then the Action Plan could be as simple as Italy ensuring all future interrogations will be recorded. And if it plays out like this then Amanda's calunnia conviction would stand.

Hopefully I have this wrong or better still, Amanda requests a revision hearing, making all of this moot.
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 25th June 2019, 11:09 AM   #288
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
It's inconceivable that a conviction based on evidence extracted under confirmed illegals means would be allowed to stand. Having it overturned seems like it would be a slum dunk for Amanda.
Stacyhs 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 25th June 2019, 11:21 AM   #289
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
As I am interpreting things...

I believe Italy is required to submit an Action Plan within six months of this final decision. However, I don't think there is a requirement to take action against the current calunnia conviction unless Amanda requests a revision. If that's true, and if Amanda does nothing, then the Action Plan could be as simple as Italy ensuring all future interrogations will be recorded. And if it plays out like this then Amanda's calunnia conviction would stand.

Hopefully I have this wrong or better still, Amanda requests a revision hearing, making all of this moot.
Under Italian law, a prosecutor may request a revision, a convicted person may request a revision, or both may make the request.

The request for revision must be based on one or more specific reasons allowed under Italian law. One such reason, in accordance with a decision of the Italian Constitutional Court, is that a reopening or revision of proceedings is required by a final judgment of the ECHR. The Chamber judgment in Knox v. Italy of January, 2019 is now the final judgment and Italy is obligated under international law - its membership in the Council of Europe - to abide by that final judgment.

As TruthCalls states, Italy is now obligated to file an Action Plan with the Council of Europe Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR indicating how it will redress its violations of Amanda's rights under the Convention. Amanda could file a request for revision before that Action Plan is filed, if she so desires.

Last edited by Numbers; 25th June 2019 at 11:30 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 25th June 2019, 11:37 AM   #290
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Wilson85 View Post
Grand Chamber Panel’s decisions

Requests for referral submitted by the Government:
Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13), judgment of 24 January 2019
> Request for referral rejected

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?...443174-8477085
Cheers! I've been sweating about this all day. Millions of Euros, billions of keystrokes, all the agony, all for nothing.

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 25th June 2019, 11:51 AM   #291
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Cheers! I've been sweating about this all day. Millions of Euros, billions of keystrokes, all the agony, all for nothing.

Hoots
Where's Francesco Maresca, the weasel lawyer who has misled the victim's family for almost a dozen years?

Should he not now be jumping up and down that the ECHR is disrespecting the victim's family?
__________________
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 25th June 2019, 12:53 PM   #292
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,122
Mt guess is that if Italy goes for a retrial on callunia, the case will be voided due to the statute of limitations. So Knox will technically be returned to the status ante (and may be able to claim compensation for her period of imprisonment, though Sollecito's experience is not positive). The pro guilt will the claim she was never found innocent so that in some 'moral' sense the verdict of the last court remains valid.
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 25th June 2019, 01:24 PM   #293
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,779
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
.... and if Italy does nothing, does that mean that a "statute of limitations" kicks in where Italy must simply vacate the conviction?

No. Italy is technically able to completely ignore the ECHR's request for a remedy. But by doing so it would be violating the terms by which it signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in the first place (a hugely important one of which was, of course, to promise to apply the remedies requested by the Court....). And that in turn would bring into great jeopardy Italy's very status as a signatory to the Convention.

I'm really not sure that Italy would welcome the potential (negative) payback of being kicked out of effectively the most respected human rights judicial organisations in the World. It's really not a good look to sport. So chances are they'll comply. Sometime.


(I too am satisfied about the refusal of the appeal - and since, as Numbers was suggesting earlier, this could have been an appealable decision purely on account of the importance and significance of the ruling, I think it's fair to suggests that the Court found Italy's grounds for appeal entirely without merit. Strangely, there's still nothing up on TJMK about this significant development in the case..... )
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 25th June 2019, 02:26 PM   #294
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,820
Everybody guessed the ECHR would throw Knox a crumb of comfort. The issue of the lawyer could be argued either way. The head judge was an Italian guy and he has demonstrated eloquently Italy was not 'picking on' Knox ... by awarding her the princely sum of €10,400. That will barely line Della Vedova's pockets. The calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 25th June 2019, 02:43 PM   #295
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Mt guess is that if Italy goes for a retrial on callunia, the case will be voided due to the statute of limitations. So Knox will technically be returned to the status ante (and may be able to claim compensation for her period of imprisonment, though Sollecito's experience is not positive). The pro guilt will the claim she was never found innocent so that in some 'moral' sense the verdict of the last court remains valid.
I doubt that there would be a retrial, because that would be a violation of double jeopardy. Italian law, the Convention, and ECHR case-law, prohibit anyone who has been finally convicted or acquitted of charges relating to a set of circumstances that constitutes a crime from being tried again for any charges relating to those same circumstances.

On the other hand, Amanda and/or a prosecutor can request revision proceedings to reverse her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.

A revision is a proceeding before an appeal court that, according to Italian law, addresses only the claimed reasons, which must be those allowed by Italian law, such as an ECHR final judgment, relating to an alleged miscarriage of justice in a final conviction.

Under Italian law, a prosecutor may request a revision, a convicted person may request a revision, or both may make the request.

The decision of the appeal court may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation by either the prosecutor or the convicted person.

The request for revision must be based on one or more specific reasons allowed under Italian law. One such reason, in accordance with a decision of the Italian Constitutional Court, is that a reopening or revision of proceedings is required by a final judgment of the ECHR.

The Chamber judgment in Knox v. Italy of January, 2019 is now the final judgment and Italy is obligated under international law - its membership in the Council of Europe - to abide by that final judgment.

Italy is now obligated to file an Action Plan with the Council of Europe Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR indicating how it will redress its violations of Amanda's rights under the Convention. Amanda could file a request for revision before that Action Plan is filed, if she so desires.
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 25th June 2019, 02:58 PM   #296
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. Italy is technically in practice able to completely ignore the ECHR's request for a remedy. But by doing so it would be violating the terms by which it signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in the first place (a hugely important one of which was, of course, to promise to apply the remedies requested by the Court....). And that in turn would bring into great jeopardy Italy's very status as a signatory to the Convention.

I'm really not sure that Italy would welcome the potential (negative) payback of being kicked out of effectively the most respected human rights judicial organisations in the World. It's really not a good look to sport. So chances are they'll comply. Sometime.


(I too am satisfied about the refusal of the appeal - and since, as Numbers was suggesting earlier, this could have been an appealable decision purely on account of the importance and significance of the ruling, I think it's fair to suggests that the Court found Italy's grounds for appeal entirely without merit. Strangely, there's still nothing up on TJMK about this significant development in the case..... )
I think "technically" is not the correct word, since "technically" Italy is obligated to adhere to its treaty obligations - it has indicated by signing the Convention that it will abide by the final judgments of the ECHR.

However, the Council of Europe is limited in its enforcement mechanisms. It does not have any police or military means to enforce ECHR judgments. In contrast, in an extreme example, when the governor of a US state, Arkansas, decided to violate a federal court decision relating to desegregation of public schools, by calling out the state's National Guard (the state's militia) to block the entry of black students to a high school, President Eisenhower federalized the National Guard (putting the militia directly under federal control, usually a war-time measure) and also ordered US Army units to Little Rock for crowd control. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
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 25th June 2019, 02:59 PM   #297
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Everybody guessed the ECHR would throw Knox a crumb of comfort. The issue of the lawyer could be argued either way. The head judge was an Italian guy and he has demonstrated eloquently Italy was not 'picking on' Knox ... by awarding her the princely sum of €10,400. That will barely line Della Vedova's pockets. The calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so.
And Guede's hand and footprints remain firmly ingrained in Meredith's violently spilled blood but let's remember what's really important haha
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 25th June 2019, 03:10 PM   #298
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. Italy is technically able to completely ignore the ECHR's request for a remedy. But by doing so it would be violating the terms by which it signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in the first place (a hugely important one of which was, of course, to promise to apply the remedies requested by the Court....). And that in turn would bring into great jeopardy Italy's very status as a signatory to the Convention.

I'm really not sure that Italy would welcome the potential (negative) payback of being kicked out of effectively the most respected human rights judicial organisations in the World. It's really not a good look to sport. So chances are they'll comply. Sometime.


(I too am satisfied about the refusal of the appeal - and since, as Numbers was suggesting earlier, this could have been an appealable decision purely on account of the importance and significance of the ruling, I think it's fair to suggests that the Court found Italy's grounds for appeal entirely without merit. Strangely, there's still nothing up on TJMK about this significant development in the case..... )
Yes, but there is another long rant by krissyg, repeating the same old tired lies and misrepresentations. I was a bit surprised to see there were eleven comments until I looked at them. All eleven came from quennell, with a separate comment for each group of lies told by krissyg. I guess he wanted to give the impression that lots of people were commenting. Oh the desperation...
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 25th June 2019, 03:15 PM   #299
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
The following is an excerpt from ABC Radio, http://sandhillsexpress.com/abc_worl...abcid36196179/

"European Court of Human Rights reaffirms that Amanda Knox’s rights were violated

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, announced Tuesday that a closed court hearing reaffirmed the court’s January decision that Amanda Knox’s defense rights had been violated in 2007 during police questioning about the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher.

The court had ruled this January that Italy had to pay approximately $20,000 in damages and legal costs to Knox for failing to provide her with a lawyer or proper translator during hours of police questioning on Nov. 6, 2007, during the initial stages of the investigation into Kercher’s murder in Perugia, Italy.

In rejecting the request, the court made the ruling final, and the Italian state will have to pay Knox damages. The judgment will be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which supervises the enforcement of European Court judgments. This should end Knox’s legal proceedings in Italy."

This news article leaves out any mention of a revision proceeding.
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 25th June 2019, 03:32 PM   #300
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
.... and if Italy does nothing, does that mean that a "statute of limitations" kicks in where Italy must simply vacate the conviction?
The simplest answer is: No, Italy has no such legal provision where a final conviction somehow is overturned by the statute of limitations. A final conviction can be reversed by a revision proceeding, which is not a retrial de novo.
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 25th June 2019, 04:09 PM   #301
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,779
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Everybody guessed the ECHR would throw Knox a crumb of comfort. The issue of the lawyer could be argued either way. The head judge was an Italian guy and he has demonstrated eloquently Italy was not 'picking on' Knox ... by awarding her the princely sum of €10,400. That will barely line Della Vedova's pockets. The calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so.


Hahahaha oh dear. Baghdad Bob is back in town....

"The calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


(These "arguments" feel more and more like a false flag operation designed to make pro-guilt commentaries seem unhinged and divorced from reality.....)
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 25th June 2019, 04:10 PM   #302
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The simplest answer is: No, Italy has no such legal provision where a final conviction somehow is overturned by the statute of limitations. A final conviction can be reversed by a revision proceeding, which is not a retrial de novo.
I have adopted the terminology "revision proceeding" in place of "revision trial" in order to emphasize that under Italian law, the revision court does not conduct a trial de novo, but rather examines only the matters relating to the claims relating to the alleged miscarriage of justice in the final conviction. There are four such legally allowed claims under Italian law, CPP Article 630, and an additional allowed claim under Italian Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011. This last is the allowed claim that revision is required because of a final judgment of the ECHR.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 04:19 PM   #303
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,779
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I think "technically" is not the correct word, since "technically" Italy is obligated to adhere to its treaty obligations - it has indicated by signing the Convention that it will abide by the final judgments of the ECHR.

However, the Council of Europe is limited in its enforcement mechanisms. It does not have any police or military means to enforce ECHR judgments. In contrast, in an extreme example, when the governor of a US state, Arkansas, decided to violate a federal court decision relating to desegregation of public schools, by calling out the state's National Guard (the state's militia) to block the entry of black students to a high school, President Eisenhower federalized the National Guard (putting the militia directly under federal control, usually a war-time measure) and also ordered US Army units to Little Rock for crowd control. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine


Well, my post clearly did imply that the ECHR cannot compel Italy to comply.

But what's important is that being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights absolutely compels those signatory states to recognise and comply with EC(ourt)HR judgements and remedies.

In other words, if Italy chooses not to comply with the directed remedies in this case, it places Italy at a very real risk of being struck of as a signatory. And it's clearly not a good look for a major European country to be kicked out as a signatory to the EC(onvention)HR for failing to comply with an EC(ourt)HR judgement and remedy. So I'd fairly strongly expect Italy to comply - albeit probably at an unnecessarily slow pace.

In any event.... following the ECHR dismissal of Italy's appeal and the scope of its judgement and remedy, Knox has undoubtedly and indisputably won an ethical and judicial victory over her criminal slander charge.
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 25th June 2019, 04:24 PM   #304
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by Vixen
Everybody guessed the ECHR would throw Knox a crumb of comfort. The issue of the lawyer could be argued either way. The head judge was an Italian guy and he has demonstrated eloquently Italy was not 'picking on' Knox ... by awarding her the princely sum of €10,400. That will barely line Della Vedova's pockets. The calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Hahahaha oh dear. Baghdad Bob is back in town....

"The calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


(These "arguments" feel more and more like a false flag operation designed to make pro-guilt commentaries seem unhinged and divorced from reality.....)
It's alternate reality time. As far as Baghdad Bob is concerned, the 2015 Supreme Court exoneration of Raffaele and Amanda was actually a "not quite guilty" decision.

As far as Baghdad Bob is concerned, the defamation proceedings brought by Mignini against Sollecito & Gumbel wasn't actually dropped (civil claim) and laughed out of court (criminal claim), but was dropped so that Sollecito & Gumbel could publicly apologize to Mignini within the week.....

An apology that everyone except Baghdad Bob is waiting for years later, because Vixen doesn't talk about it any more.

And here we have another - the ECHR cites Italy for violating Knox's rights in relation to the calunnia conviction against Lumumba, and completes its finding by disallowing an "appeal" (I forget the word that Numbers cites using the proper lingo) to an upper body of the ECHR.

It's now back in Knox's and Italy's hands for a possible revision proceeding, but, according to Baghdad Bob, the "calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so."

Sorry TomG..... all I can say is HOOTS!
__________________
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 25th June 2019, 04:25 PM   #305
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,779
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I have adopted the terminology "revision proceeding" in place of "revision trial" in order to emphasize that under Italian law, the revision court does not conduct a trial de novo, but rather examines only the matters relating to the claims relating to the alleged miscarriage of justice in the final conviction. There are four such legally allowed claims under Italian law, CPP Article 630, and an additional allowed claim under Italian Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011. This last is the allowed claim that revision is required because of a final judgment of the ECHR.


And those four allowable claims will be more than adequate to ensure the quashing of Knox's conviction on this charge. After all, if the revision proceeding applies the ECHR remedy (meaning that all of Knox's very statements must be excluded), then the exact and sole instrument which was used to condemn and convict Knox no longer exists in judicial terms. It's a total guarantee of an overturning of the conviction.

The speed (or its opposite) with which Italy chooses to sort this out will almost certainly make for interesting observation......
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 25th June 2019, 04:28 PM   #306
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,779
Still the sound of crickets over on TJMK in respect of today's news. I wonder if KrissyG is, even as I write, preparing her next unhinged diatribe of bollocks. Come on, KrissyG! We need some entertainment!!
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 25th June 2019, 04:30 PM   #307
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
In any event.... following the ECHR dismissal of Italy's appeal and the scope of its judgement and remedy, Knox has undoubtedly and indisputably won an ethical and judicial victory over her criminal slander charge.
I don't know this for sure, but this reality probably played big in the Modena Innocence Project people inviting Knox to speak two weekends ago.

As an aside, for the Baghdad Bobs in this thread - remember how many times we'd been told that Knox was ineligible for international travel because she was a "felon". Remember us suggesting that she might not have been a felon when she spoke at a law school in Canada?

We were told that if Knox had ever set foot in Italy that THEN we'd see. So said Baghdad Bob. (Sorry for hijacking and overusing your metaphor, but it just seems so appropriate. I've already hijacked TomG's "hoots", so go big or go home.)

Why is it that our own version of Baghdad Bob been so wrong so many times, 180 degrees wrong?

But do not worry. Give Vixen a week or two and the old memes will come around the merry-go-round and we'll start again as if nothing ever had happened.
__________________
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 25th June 2019, 06:07 PM   #308
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And those four allowable claims will be more than adequate to ensure the quashing of Knox's conviction on this charge. After all, if the revision proceeding applies the ECHR remedy (meaning that all of Knox's very statements must be excluded), then the exact and sole instrument which was used to condemn and convict Knox no longer exists in judicial terms. It's a total guarantee of an overturning of the conviction.

The speed (or its opposite) with which Italy chooses to sort this out will almost certainly make for interesting observation......
I was not very specific in what I had written about the "allowed claims", and I fear that I have unintentionally mislead you and perhaps others to misunderstand the content of the Italian procedural law I was referring to. I have previously provided an English translation of that law, but it was some time ago and, of course, its substance would not necessarily be remembered.

That law is CPP Article 630, Cases of revision.

The text of CPP Article 630, as translated in The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, by Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa, is as follows:

1. Revision may be requested:

a) if the facts underlying the judgment or the criminal decree of conviction are incompatible with the facts established in another final criminal judgment ....

b) if the judgment or criminal decree of conviction confirm the existence of the offence committed by the civil or administrative judge, which has been subsequently revoked ....

c) if new evidence is found or discovered after conviction and, either independently or jointly with already assessed evidence, proves that the convicted person must be dismissed under {the CPP articles for one of the following: the criminal prosecution should not have been started, there should have been an acquittal, or the statute of limitations had passed at the time of conviction}.

d) if it is proven that the judgment of conviction has been delivered as a consequence of false documents or statements provided during the trial or any other criminal act deemed an offence by law.
____
Thus, the specific provisions of CPP Article 630 are not relevant to Amanda Knox's case of wrongful conviction for calunnia. One could suggest that paragraph (d) would apply, but this would require proving to an Italian appeal court's satisfaction that the actions of the police and Mignini were criminal acts, and that is not at all likely because they were careful not to document their actions during the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007.

What does apply to Knox's case is the Italian Constitutional Court's decision 113 of 2011, which states that there is an additional claim that is a fully legally valid justification of a request for revision, and that is a final judgment of the ECHR requiring a revisitation or reopening of proceedings. The Constitutional Court pointed out that this must follow under law from the Italian Constitution, which itself states that Italy follows international law. Since Italy is obligated by the European Convention - Council of Europe treaty to abide by the final judgments of the ECHR, a final ECHR judgement is a constitutionally binding obligation of international law on 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 25th June 2019, 06:10 PM   #309
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I was not very specific in what I had written about the "allowed claims", and I fear that I have unintentionally mislead you and perhaps others to misunderstand the content of the Italian procedural law I was referring to. I have previously provided an English translation of that law, but it was some time ago and, of course, its substance would not necessarily be remembered.

That law is CPP Article 630, Cases of revision.

The text of CPP Article 630, as translated in The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, by Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa, is as follows:

1. Revision may be requested:

a) if the facts underlying the judgment or the criminal decree of conviction are incompatible with the facts established in another final criminal judgment ....

b) if the judgment or criminal decree of conviction confirm the existence of the offence committed by the civil or administrative judge, which has been subsequently revoked ....

c) if new evidence is found or discovered after conviction and, either independently or jointly with already assessed evidence, proves that the convicted person must be dismissed under {the CPP articles for one of the following: the criminal prosecution should not have been started, there should have been an acquittal, or the statute of limitations had passed at the time of conviction}.

d) if it is proven that the judgment of conviction has been delivered as a consequence of false documents or statements provided during the trial or any other criminal act deemed an offence by law.
____
Thus, the specific provisions of CPP Article 630 are not relevant to Amanda Knox's case of wrongful conviction for calunnia. One could suggest that paragraph (d) would apply, but this would require proving to an Italian appeal court's satisfaction that the actions of the police and Mignini were criminal acts, and that is not at all likely because they were careful not to document their actions during the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007.

What does apply to Knox's case is the Italian Constitutional Court's decision 113 of 2011, which states that there is an additional claim that is a fully legally valid justification of a request for revision, and that is a final judgment of the ECHR requiring a revisitation or reopening of proceedings. The Constitutional Court pointed out that this must follow under law from the Italian Constitution, which itself states that Italy follows international law. Since Italy is obligated by the European Convention - Council of Europe treaty to abide by the final judgments of the ECHR, a final ECHR judgement is a constitutionally binding obligation of international law on Italy.
I should point out that in his rightfully unsuccessful attempt to obtain a revision proceeding, Rudy Guede in his request relied upon CPP Article 630.1(a), claiming that there was a conflict between his final conviction and the final acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.
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 25th June 2019, 06:13 PM   #310
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Everybody guessed the ECHR would throw Knox a crumb of comfort. The issue of the lawyer could be argued either way. The head judge was an Italian guy and he has demonstrated eloquently Italy was not 'picking on' Knox ... by awarding her the princely sum of €10,400. That will barely line Della Vedova's pockets. The calunnia conviction is safe and remains firmly so.
ROTFLMAO! "A crumb of comfort"? Everybody guessed that, did they? I recall a lot of claims of Knox not meeting the admissibility requirements even after the BBC announced the ECHR had accepted her complaint. Then we were regaled with the many and varied reasons why the ECHR would not find in her favor. It seems to me that a certain very frequent contributor to TJMK 'articles' has a long history of making predictions that fail miserably to materialize. A word of advice to KrissyG if she's reading this: get out of the crime analysis business. You're really not very good at it.
Stacyhs 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 25th June 2019, 10:14 PM   #311
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well, my post clearly did imply that the ECHR cannot compel Italy to comply.

But what's important is that being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights absolutely compels those signatory states to recognise and comply with EC(ourt)HR judgements and remedies.

In other words, if Italy chooses not to comply with the directed remedies in this case, it places Italy at a very real risk of being struck of as a signatory. And it's clearly not a good look for a major European country to be kicked out as a signatory to the EC(onvention)HR for failing to comply with an EC(ourt)HR judgement and remedy. So I'd fairly strongly expect Italy to comply - albeit probably at an unnecessarily slow pace.

In any event.... following the ECHR dismissal of Italy's appeal and the scope of its judgement and remedy, Knox has undoubtedly and indisputably won an ethical and judicial victory over her criminal slander charge.
I believe that Italy will eventually comply with the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy, because Italy's record of compliance with ECHR judgments is in reality about as high as that of other large Western democracies, although Italy tends to have many more judgments against it than the other large Western democracies.

Italy has had 4182 ECHR cases against it that have been referred to the Committee of Ministers for supervision. Of these, 3947 or 94.4% have been closed by final resolution of the CoM. Of course, there are some very serious rights violation cases still open against Italy and under enhanced supervision by the CoM. In comparison, the UK has 420 closed cases out of 448 total, or 93.8% closed by final resolution, with only 1 case under enhanced supervision; France has 988 closed out of 1020 total, or 96.9% closed, with no cases under enhanced supervision, while Germany has 206 closed out of 224 total cases, or 92.0% closed, with no cases under enhanced supervision. These data are available in the country-specific links at:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/country-factsheets

Regarding the Council of Europe measures taken against states that have a history of non-compliance with their obligations to follow the final judgments of the ECHR, the primary examples have been Azerbaijan and Russia.

Azerbaijan has 21 cases closed out of 207, or 10.1% closed, with many under enhanced supervision. Azerbaijan has been found in a final judgment by the ECHR Grand Chamber to be in violation of its obligations under Convention Article 46 in a case raised by the Committee of Ministers. See: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22i...01-193543%22]}

Russia has 1035 closed of 2653 cases total, or 39.0% closed. Because of its unsatisfactory record of abiding with the final judgments of the ECHR, Russia's voting rights have been restricted in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). However, according to a recent news article:

"Europe's top human rights organization is reinstating Russia's voting rights, a major step in removing penalties for a country accused of grave human rights violations.

Russia was stripped of its rights in 2014, after it annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. The seizure triggered international condemnation.

This week, the Council of Europe, a Strasbourg-based watchdog founded in 1949 to protect the rule of law and democracy on the continent, changed course. Its parliamentary assembly composed of member legislators voted to restore Russia's voting rights 118-62, with 10 abstentions. The move gives Russia a greater say in human rights issues, from budgets to leadership."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/73576...-voting-rights

Last edited by Numbers; 25th June 2019 at 10:20 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 25th June 2019, 10:38 PM   #312
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Shame on the C of E (and I don't mean the Church of England).
Stacyhs 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 26th June 2019, 01:42 AM   #313
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,779
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Shame on the C of E (and I don't mean the Church of England).

Oh, shame on the Church of England too - but for very different reasons

(I think the Council of Europe is more frequently abbreviated as "CoE")
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 26th June 2019, 01:52 AM   #314
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,779
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
What does apply to Knox's case is the Italian Constitutional Court's decision 113 of 2011, which states that there is an additional claim that is a fully legally valid justification of a request for revision, and that is a final judgment of the ECHR requiring a revisitation or reopening of proceedings. The Constitutional Court pointed out that this must follow under law from the Italian Constitution, which itself states that Italy follows international law. Since Italy is obligated by the European Convention - Council of Europe treaty to abide by the final judgments of the ECHR, a final ECHR judgement is a constitutionally binding obligation of international law on Italy.


Exactly. And in this instance (and indeed all instances where there is an ECHR judgement against a signatory state with a directed remedy), it's not only that Italy is bound (under its obligations as a signatory state) to conduct a revision procedure on Knox's criminal slander charge, but also that Italy is likewise bound to apply the ECHR remedy within that revision procedure.

And since the directed ECHR remedy in this case is, in practice, to exclude all of Knox's statements of 6th November 2007 from the revision procedure, it effectively ensures that the revision procedure will result in a "revision" of Knox's criminal slander conviction to a full and final annulment and acquittal.
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 26th June 2019, 05:28 AM   #315
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Shame on the C of E (and I don't mean the Church of England).
What did the Council of Europe do?
__________________
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 26th June 2019, 05:40 AM   #316
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly. And in this instance (and indeed all instances where there is an ECHR judgement against a signatory state with a directed remedy), it's not only that Italy is bound (under its obligations as a signatory state) to conduct a revision procedure on Knox's criminal slander charge, but also that Italy is likewise bound to apply the ECHR remedy within that revision procedure.

And since the directed ECHR remedy in this case is, in practice, to exclude all of Knox's statements of 6th November 2007 from the revision procedure, it effectively ensures that the revision procedure will result in a "revision" of Knox's criminal slander conviction to a full and final annulment and acquittal.
You are absolutely correct within the current state of Italian law.

What should be pointed out for clarity is that the obligation to abide by the final judgments of the ECHR is a Constitutional and treaty obligation.

However, exactly how to abide depends, to a great degree, on the exact legal mechanisms Italy has adopted. For the Knox case, as for any other where the ECHR has found a violation of Convention Article 6.1 of an unfair trial, the current Italian legal mechanism is a revision procedure. The Italian parliament could, within the constraints of the Convention and ECHR case-law, adopt a different procedure for addressing the need for Italy to abide by the final judgment of the ECHR for a violation of Article 6.1, unfair trial.
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 26th June 2019, 07:09 AM   #317
whoanellie
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
ROTFLMAO! "A crumb of comfort"? Everybody guessed that, did they? I recall a lot of claims of Knox not meeting the admissibility requirements even after the BBC announced the ECHR had accepted her complaint. Then we were regaled with the many and varied reasons why the ECHR would not find in her favor. It seems to me that a certain very frequent contributor to TJMK 'articles' has a long history of making predictions that fail miserably to materialize. A word of advice to KrissyG if she's reading this: get out of the crime analysis business. You're really not very good at it.
Vixen isn't either.
whoanellie 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 26th June 2019, 08:28 AM   #318
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by Stacyhas
ROTFLMAO! "A crumb of comfort"? Everybody guessed that, did they?
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Vixen isn't either.
What does a "crumb of comfort" even mean? Both Vixen and this other KrissyG have a weird notion as to what courts do.

For instance, the first **convicting** court, even while convicting, rejected huge facets of what Mignini and Comodi had claimed at trial.

Vixen called this, Massei throwing crumbs to the defence - meaning, that to balance off wrongly convicting two people, you'd say something nice later on.

Yes, that's how courts work.
__________________
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 26th June 2019, 09:50 AM   #319
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Well, Vixen does have a point. Remember when the Massei court 'dropped' the credit card and money theft charges? I think they were trying to give Raff and her a crumb of comfort while convicting them of murder.
Stacyhs 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 26th June 2019, 01:17 PM   #320
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
KrissyG was busy in yet another misinformation/misleading riddled rant again over on TJMK. For example:

Quote:
In his (Guede) description of the ‘man in the doorway’ of Meredith’s room as of the time of his arrest he claims the hall light had been switched off and the intruder’s face was backlit (in other words in the dark), but that he had light brown hair, was shorter than him and spoke native fluent Italian.

In addition, he wore a Napapirri (sic) type jacket, a white beanie, with a red band, and held a stiletto blade in his left hand.
Perhaps Vixen could inform KrissyG that no such jacket or white beanie with a red band was ever found to belong to Raffaele nor did anyone ever testify to seeing Raff ever wearing such clothing. We discussed this at great length in this very forum and Vixen was never able to produce any evidence of these claims. KrissyG also claims Guede said the man "held a stiletto blade" when, in fact, he actually said in his deposition of March 26, 2008 "This knife I must say in all honesty, in those moments I didn’t see…". He then said "A knife that I described as a scalpel, because even just touching me it cut me…". No mention of a "stiletto blade". He also refers to it as a "scalpel" not a "stiletto" in his prison diary. KrissyG appears to have just made up the "stiletto" part. Could that possibly be to make it sound more like a knife that Raff owned? Nah....

Another misleading part of KrissyG's 'article' on TJMK:
Quote:
In WTBH p 220 Knox claims when she saw Guede’s photo on tv for the first time after he was arrested she thought, ‘Oh my God, it’s him.’ She goes on to claim this was the guy she was referring to when she told police of a South African ’who played basketball with the guys downstairs’.
What Knox actually wrote:

Quote:
'I think he's South African', I told the detective.
Quote:
Guede himself claims he referred to himself as South African when chatting to Meredith during the England vs South Africa rugby cup final.

So, how did Knox ‘know’ he was ‘South African’ if she had never spoken to him, bearing in mind South Africans in Europe aren’t generally assumed to be black?

Quote:
She claims she had only seen him one time after that, at Le Chic when she had ‘taken his drink order’.
Notice the difference between she thinks he's S. African and what KrissyG says. Knox never says she "knows" he is. As to how she might have thought he was S. African, it's quite possible one of the boys downstairs mentioned it to her. After all, Guede claims himself he told Meredith he was S. African so why couldn't he have lied to others about it? Knox had also served him later at Le Chic and it's possible he mentioned it to her then. Guede admitted he was attracted to Knox so he might have told her that in an attempt to flirt with her.

Quote:
She omits to mention joining him for a joint with the guys in the downstairs house.
Knox does mention meeting Guede to the police and going to the cottage with the boys downstairs:

Quote:
They introduced him to Meredith and me in Piazza IV Novembre in mid-October. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.
Why didn't she mention smoking pot to the police? Oh, gee...that's a tough one. Let's see if we can figure it out. Apparently Krissy G can't.

Krissy G tells many whoppers in that 'article' but I'll finish with these:

Quote:
The invisible bloody footprint directly facing Meredith’s door has been identified by forensic experts as Sollecito’s.
First Krissy G points out that Knox didn't mention smoking pot with the boys downstairs to the police the night she met Guede (who would?) but then she fails to mention that the "bloody" footprint tested negative for blood with TMB. Citing the location as 'directly facing Meredith's door' is misleading as it also is in the natural position for someone merely exiting the bathroom.
More from Krissy G:

Quote:
Add to the mixes of Knox’s and Meredith’s blood and/or DNA in the bathroom sink, bidet, cotton bud box and light switch, it is hardly accurate to say ‘there is no sign of Knox (or Sollecito) at the crime scene’,
Yes, it's sooooooo rare to find mixed DNA in a bathroom two girls shared for 6 weeks! In wiping up blood samples as seen in the police videos, it's simply impossible for underlying pre-deposited DNA to be wiped up along with it. That's why there are never mixed DNA samples found anywhere!
Krissy G also misleads with the use of the words "crime scene' when, more accurately, the Supreme Court rightly said there was no sign of the two in the room where the murder took place.

Quote:
...especially if one considers that the footprint/shoeprint expert further positively identified a ladies size 37 trainer shoe print underneath the body.
LOL! And another expert using Crimescope, an advanced forensic tool, identified that very same print as a partial print of Guede's shoe. No judge ever declared that it was a woman's shoeprint. Funny how Krissy G leaves that out, innit?

You have to feel bad for Krissy G who feels the need to lie and mislead rather than present a fair and honest account of the evidence. Could that be because doing so would reveal the fundamental weaknesses of her conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilt?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 26th June 2019 at 01:18 PM.
Stacyhs 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
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 07:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.