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 18th May 2020, 09:01 AM   #1801
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,419
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
US State Department backchannelling.

To see this in action I refer you to the case of Anne Sacoolas (_sp?). There is an interpol warrant out for her arrest but the US State Department say they will not extradite their dear US citizen no matter what the charge.
Of course diplomatic immunity, whether it's a valid claim or not, is not something that would apply to Amanda or Raffaele. And, of course, Anne Sacoolas is a former CIA operative, and that clearly doesn't apply to Amanda or Raffaele either. But yeah, aside from these minor differences, this does show how the US State Department would get involved in blocking extradition for a 'nobody' who was accused of murder.

You conspiracy theorists really crack me up!
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 18th May 2020, 11:43 PM   #1802
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The BBC article is from May 4, 2020. Hardly 'old news'.

The second one is from January. And it's the position the State Dept. still holds.

You're going to have to do a better job than you've done tonight.

I'm off to bed. Bye.
Since then, an international warrant for her arrest has been issued.

Do keep up!
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 18th May 2020, 11:49 PM   #1803
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
If you see it as lying, then that's your problem. Remember, the topic was "the only officials ever charged....", which most people with reading comprehension skills would be able to navigate.

Aside from the rest of your word salad, it's also interesting what you omit. Mignini was "cleared" not on the evidence, but because of statute of limitations. Other prosecutors simply refused to move his charges forward. Make of that what you will, but it allows the rest of us to still evaluate the evidence against him. Esp. the evidence at his first trial which is a matter of record.

Speaking of other P.M.s, it was Mignini's peers who censured him. Full stop. He was never "cleared" of that, regardless of the word salad you toss on top of it.
All prosecutors and judges are subjected to numerous complaints from disgruntled defendants, most of them frivolous or misconceived. Criminals, in particular, hate the police, prosecutors and judges with a vengeance. They even tattoo themselves with ACAB on their fingers. It was once an offence to use that term ('all coppers are bastards'). Mexican and Russian gangsters/prisoners are covered in anti-authority inkmarks. Italy home of the Mafia. Of course, there were truckloads of complaints directed at anti-Mafia 'let's clean up this town' Mignini. Hazard of the job.

No surprise Amanda Knox hates him with a passion as he saw right through her.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 19th May 2020, 12:01 AM   #1804
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
IMHO you were better off when you weren't posting.

- This ENTIRE post is simply wrong. 15 LOCI are tested, with 2 alleles per LOCUS, making 30 alleles, not 17.

- Using Stefanoni's RTIGF only 13 of 30 alleles were observed but ALL of those alleles are shared by Meredith and Raffaele, whose profiles are fully represented, so none can be attributed to Amanda.

- Using all peaks noted by C&V that are over the 50 RFU threshold, six more alleles are introduced, but only three are unique to Amanda.

- Attempting to equate fingerprint identification to mixed DNA profile analysis is amazingly misguided. Mixed DNA profiles are exponentially more complex.

- Anna Barbaro did not opine Amanda's DNA was on the clasp, and citing her credentials doesn't change that fact.


And yes, the gap between what is available and proven versus what is required to declare someone's DNA is present to a high degree of probability is MASSIVE.
As you know, when people refer to alleles they are referring to pairs of alleles. I thought that was given, but clearly a novice needs to have it spelt out for them.

Fingerprints are a good analogy because it requires matching a print to a certain criteria, for example, for a fingerprint to be deemed 'compatible' with a suspect it has to be at a high level of significance, iirc, something like 18 points have to match, and this is done by photography, and measured in a similar way Boema and Rinaldi assessed and measured the footprint on the bathmat and deemed it compatible to Sollecito's.

No to get eighteen points matching, this equates to a high level of signifiance int hat the chances of this happening randomly are deemed vanishingly remote. Matching 15 to 17 alleles (pairs) is of a similar level of improbability it was left by anyone other than the person it matches up to. If this goes below a certain level of significance, the suspect is given the benefit of a doubt, as happened with Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra. Whilst it is not as the level of near absolute certainty as required by a criminal court, we all know, you know, I know, the police know, the defences knows, Vinci knows, Pascali knows that Amanda Knox left her signature on Mereidth's bra.

Nobody ever disputes the findings of a fingerprint match or asks for it to be redone, so it's kind of amusing to see defence lawyers seize on DNA testing and demanding all sorts of unreasonable criteria.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 19th May 2020, 12:05 AM   #1805
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Of course diplomatic immunity, whether it's a valid claim or not, is not something that would apply to Amanda or Raffaele. And, of course, Anne Sacoolas is a former CIA operative, and that clearly doesn't apply to Amanda or Raffaele either. But yeah, aside from these minor differences, this does show how the US State Department would get involved in blocking extradition for a 'nobody' who was accused of murder.

You conspiracy theorists really crack me up!
Sacoolas DID NOT have diplomatic immunity as far as the UK is concerned when she drove into that poor young lad on his bike causing his sad death and anguish to his grief-stricken family by dangerous driving without due care and attention. Her husband was the diplomat not her and in the UK immunity does not stretch to friends and family. Who cares if she is an ex-CIA operative? Means sweet Fanny Adams.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 19th May 2020, 12:22 AM   #1806
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Since then, an international warrant for her arrest has been issued.

Do keep up!
I already knew that. But it has nothing to do with your claims about State Dept. "back channeling" on the Knox acquittal. Do try and stay on topic.

The warrant was issued by the Northampshire police but no country is obligated to arrest her.
Additionally, the police have no power to decide on whether someone has diplomatic immunity or not. The can only be decided by the UK Foreign Office. And they have acknowledged she does. See my post below for quote and citation.

You're batting zero so far.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th May 2020 at 01:24 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 19th May 2020, 01:06 AM   #1807
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As you know, when people refer to alleles they are referring to pairs of alleles. I thought that was given, but clearly a novice needs to have it spelt out for them.

Fingerprints are a good analogy because it requires matching a print to a certain criteria, for example, for a fingerprint to be deemed 'compatible' with a suspect it has to be at a high level of significance, iirc, something like 18 points have to match, and this is done by photography, and measured in a similar way Boema and Rinaldi assessed and measured the footprint on the bathmat and deemed it compatible to Sollecito's.

No to get eighteen points matching, this equates to a high level of signifiance int hat the chances of this happening randomly are deemed vanishingly remote. Matching 15 to 17 alleles (pairs) is of a similar level of improbability it was left by anyone other than the person it matches up to. If this goes below a certain level of significance, the suspect is given the benefit of a doubt, as happened with Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra. Whilst it is not as the level of near absolute certainty as required by a criminal court, we all know, you know, I know, the police know, the defences knows, Vinci knows, Pascali knows that Amanda Knox left her signature on Mereidth's bra.

Nobody ever disputes the findings of a fingerprint match or asks for it to be redone, so it's kind of amusing to see defence lawyers seize on DNA testing and demanding all sorts of unreasonable criteria.
Oh, dear. I see you have completely hand waved away the evidence that Barbaro did NOT claim Knox's DNA was on the bra clasp as you so foolishly claimed. Just as you hand wave away the evidence that Balding concluded that Knox's DNA was not on it. You just ignore what he actually wrote. Just as you ignore the fact that not a single expert even suggested Knox's DNA was on the clasp. Not even Stefanoni. But you have the audacity to tell us what they really knew and believed. And what the defense knew and, for some really unfathomable reason, what WE know. Because you have some special inside info that has not been shared with the rest of the world. Bizarre. Just bizarre.

You have failed to provide an actual quote or citation from any of the people you have named saying Knox's DNA was on the bra clasp. Your quote from Balding was a spectacular nothing burger because you failed to read the rest of what he wrote. You just c & p'd a cherry picked section from Balding's article presented on TJMK instead of reading the rest of the article.
Quote:
Nobody ever disputes the findings of a fingerprint match or asks for it to be redone
Oh, really? Not that you ridiculous fingerprint matching to DNA matching is relevant:

1. Brandom Mayfield: arrested by FBI for terrorism when a terrorist's fingerprint were misidentified as Mayfield's.

2. Richard Jackson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1998. His conviction rested solely on his fingerprints in blood being found at the crime scene. It was later shown that the fingerprints were not his and he was exonerated.

3. Lana Canen was convicted of murder when the only evidence against her was two fingerprints found an the victim's pill bottle. After 8 years in prison, the officer who identified the prints as hers admitted he'd made a mistake. Canen was freed.

Quote:
The Real Crime: 1,000 Errors in Fingerprint Matching Every Year

Nobody knows how many people sit wrongfully convicted in prison due to errors in fingerprint matching. But a new study suggests there could be a thousand or more unknown identification errors a year in the United States.
Criminologist Simon Cole of the University of California at Irvine examined all 22 known cases of fingerprint mistakes made since 1920.

Most of the 22 cases were revealed only through "extremely fortuitous circumstances," such as a post-conviction DNA test, the intervention of foreign police and in one case a deadly lab accident that led to the re-evaluation of evidence, Cole said today.

Cole thinks the high-profile cases are the tip of an iceberg of wrongfully accused, cases that are sometimes swept under the rug or lead to convictions. Other studies have shown an error rate of 0.8 percent in matching prints. Multiplied across all cases processed by U.S. crime labs in 2002, that would b e 1,900 mistaken fingerprint matches.

Cole says the public is led to believe that fingerprint analysis is infallible.
Apparently, you are one of those who think so.
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 19th May 2020, 01:21 AM   #1808
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sacoolas DID NOT have diplomatic immunity as far as the UK is concerned when she drove into that poor young lad on his bike causing his sad death and anguish to his grief-stricken family by dangerous driving without due care and attention. Her husband was the diplomat not her and in the UK immunity does not stretch to friends and family. Who cares if she is an ex-CIA operative? Means sweet Fanny Adams.
You might want to tell the UK Foreign Office that. Because they're under the opinion that she did:

Under the 1961 Vienna Convention, diplomats and their families cannot be arrested or prosecuted.
However, there are side treaties between the US and UK. Mrs Sacoolas's husband Jonathan worked at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, and under a 1995 exchange of diplomatic notes he was liable for any crime committed outside of his direct work.
But as there was no explicit mention of spouses, Mrs Sacoolas is immune from prosecution.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...imes-1999.html
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 19th May 2020, 01:54 AM   #1809
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You might want to tell the UK Foreign Office that. Because they're under the opinion that she did:

Under the 1961 Vienna Convention, diplomats and their families cannot be arrested or prosecuted.
However, there are side treaties between the US and UK. Mrs Sacoolas's husband Jonathan worked at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, and under a 1995 exchange of diplomatic notes he was liable for any crime committed outside of his direct work.
But as there was no explicit mention of spouses, Mrs Sacoolas is immune from prosecution.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...imes-1999.html
Do keep up with the news. See the Evening Standard, yesterday.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 19th May 2020, 01:55 AM   #1810
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, dear. I see you have completely hand waved away the evidence that Barbaro did NOT claim Knox's DNA was on the bra clasp as you so foolishly claimed. Just as you hand wave away the evidence that Balding concluded that Knox's DNA was not on it. You just ignore what he actually wrote. Just as you ignore the fact that not a single expert even suggested Knox's DNA was on the clasp. Not even Stefanoni. But you have the audacity to tell us what they really knew and believed. And what the defense knew and, for some really unfathomable reason, what WE know. Because you have some special inside info that has not been shared with the rest of the world. Bizarre. Just bizarre.

You have failed to provide an actual quote or citation from any of the people you have named saying Knox's DNA was on the bra clasp. Your quote from Balding was a spectacular nothing burger because you failed to read the rest of what he wrote. You just c & p'd a cherry picked section from Balding's article presented on TJMK instead of reading the rest of the article.


Oh, really? Not that you ridiculous fingerprint matching to DNA matching is relevant:

1. Brandom Mayfield: arrested by FBI for terrorism when a terrorist's fingerprint were misidentified as Mayfield's.

2. Richard Jackson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1998. His conviction rested solely on his fingerprints in blood being found at the crime scene. It was later shown that the fingerprints were not his and he was exonerated.

3. Lana Canen was convicted of murder when the only evidence against her was two fingerprints found an the victim's pill bottle. After 8 years in prison, the officer who identified the prints as hers admitted he'd made a mistake. Canen was freed.



Apparently, you are one of those who think so.
No, I didn't say it was infallible. I said defences don't see it as the same 'get out clause' as they do DNA.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 19th May 2020, 02:03 AM   #1811
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,575
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
All prosecutors and judges are subjected to numerous complaints from disgruntled defendants, most of them frivolous or misconceived. Criminals, in particular, hate the police, prosecutors and judges with a vengeance. They even tattoo themselves with ACAB on their fingers. It was once an offence to use that term ('all coppers are bastards'). Mexican and Russian gangsters/prisoners are covered in anti-authority inkmarks. Italy home of the Mafia. Of course, there were truckloads of complaints directed at anti-Mafia 'let's clean up this town' Mignini. Hazard of the job.

No surprise Amanda Knox hates him with a passion as he saw right through her.
Yet another pointless word salad.
__________________
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 19th May 2020, 02:13 AM   #1812
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do keep up with the news. See the Evening Standard, yesterday.
Sigh. That article does not refute anything I've said nor does it support your claims. The UK gov't requested the US waive diplomatic rights which the US rejected.

Did you even read the article I linked to? It clearly explains the situation.

You have failed to provide evidence that the UK Foreign Office does not acknowledge the immunity. You're still batting zero, Vix.
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 19th May 2020, 02:23 AM   #1813
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, I didn't say it was infallible. I said defences don't see it as the same 'get out clause' as they do DNA.
Quote:
No to get eighteen points matching, this equates to a high level of signifiance in that the chances of this happening randomly are deemed vanishingly remote.
Quote:
Nobody ever disputes the findings of a fingerprint match or asks for it to be redone,
(disproved)


No, "vanishingly remote" is nowhere near "infallible". Which is why you never said that no one ever asks for fingerprint match results to be redone or disputes them.
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 19th May 2020, 02:24 AM   #1814
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Yet another pointless word salad.
Quantity over quality works for some people.
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 19th May 2020, 02:40 AM   #1815
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
(disproved)


No, "vanishingly remote" is nowhere near "infallible". Which is why you never said that no one ever asks for fingerprint match results to be redone or disputes them.
Oh dear. Let's keep it simple and imagine that the probability of a random fingerprint matches yours at even one point is a generous 50%. Calculate the probability of 18 points matching. Clue: 0.50^18

In other words: vanishingly remote.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 19th May 2020, 02:45 AM   #1816
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nobody knows how many people sit wrongfully convicted in prison due to errors in fingerprint matching. But a new study suggests there could be a thousand or more unknown identification errors a year in the United States.
Criminologist Simon Cole of the University of California at Irvine examined all 22 known cases of fingerprint mistakes made since 1920.
.


In other words ONE case every ten years or so.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 19th May 2020, 07:17 AM   #1817
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,419
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As you know, when people refer to alleles they are referring to pairs of alleles. I thought that was given, but clearly a novice needs to have it spelt out for them.

Fingerprints are a good analogy because it requires matching a print to a certain criteria, for example, for a fingerprint to be deemed 'compatible' with a suspect it has to be at a high level of significance, iirc, something like 18 points have to match, and this is done by photography, and measured in a similar way Boema and Rinaldi assessed and measured the footprint on the bathmat and deemed it compatible to Sollecito's.

No to get eighteen points matching, this equates to a high level of signifiance int hat the chances of this happening randomly are deemed vanishingly remote. Matching 15 to 17 alleles (pairs) is of a similar level of improbability it was left by anyone other than the person it matches up to. If this goes below a certain level of significance, the suspect is given the benefit of a doubt, as happened with Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra. Whilst it is not as the level of near absolute certainty as required by a criminal court, we all know, you know, I know, the police know, the defences knows, Vinci knows, Pascali knows that Amanda Knox left her signature on Mereidth's bra.

Nobody ever disputes the findings of a fingerprint match or asks for it to be redone, so it's kind of amusing to see defence lawyers seize on DNA testing and demanding all sorts of unreasonable criteria.
No, if we wish to discuss a pair of alleles we'd call them a pair or we'd refer to the locus being evaluated. Alleles are individual and there were 30 of them defined in Amanda's profile. All count.

If referring to an allele implied a pair, then how would you describe the results for loci D13S317 and D19S433? Pair's of alleles exist at each locus, but each allele is examined on it's own, and the relationship between the two (e.g., one present, the other is not or one has a very high RFU, the other very low) all affects how you evaluate the profile. So was "the allele" at those two locations a match or no?

Fingerprinting is a horrible analogy. The most obvious reason being there is no such thing as mixed fingerprints samples. You have a print, you identified data points, you determine if those points match the suspect. You don't have to consider the print could belong to two, three or more individuals and then try to determine the probability of one of them being present. Fingerprint data points don't have an equivalent to an RFU value that must be taken into account during the analysis. If a print has data points that don't match the suspect then the print isn't theirs. If a DNA analysis reveals alleles (not pairs, just singular alleles) that don't belong to the suspect it could still be a mixed profile (that is, unless there are only two alleles at each locus, in which case it IS like a fingerprint, but since we're discussing a mixed DNA sample, it's moot). Fingerprints don't have to deal with issues such as stutter and dropouts. And prints can not be contaminated.

You wrote; "Matching 15 to 17 alleles (pairs) is of a similar level of improbability it was left by anyone other than the person it matches up to." - First of all, only 15 loci are being evaluated, not 17. Secondly, you haven't "matched" a pair if only one of the two alleles for that locus is present in the sample. And in the case of Amanda, only 3 out of 15 loci had both alleles present in the profile. Even if we ignore the 50 RFU threshold only 11 or 15 have both alleles present. However, the probability of Amanda's DNA being present isn't as simple as claiming 11 of 15. That's because both Meredith's and Raffaele's profiles are fully represented and therefore you can't simply assume where they share an allele it was jointly contributed by both. And that's the point... going by Stefanoni's RTIGF results, ALL alleles that match in Amanda's profile (13 out of 30, only 3 loci where both alleles are matched) also match Meredith's or Raffaele's profile. This effectly provides NO evidence of Amanda's profile being present. You can start to theorize someone's DNA is present if there are alleles that are unique to only that individual, but even when we consider all peaks identified by C&V that are 50 RFU or above, ONLY three are unique to Amanda. And this is why the gap is MASSIVE.

People do dispute fingerprint matches, but compared to the B&W nature of fingerprint matching, profiling mixed DNA samples is comparable to 32bit color. That you don't understand the huge disparity in the complexity of the two sciences is very telling.
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 19th May 2020, 07:46 AM   #1818
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,419
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sacoolas DID NOT have diplomatic immunity as far as the UK is concerned when she drove into that poor young lad on his bike causing his sad death and anguish to his grief-stricken family by dangerous driving without due care and attention. Her husband was the diplomat not her and in the UK immunity does not stretch to friends and family. Who cares if she is an ex-CIA operative? Means sweet Fanny Adams.
Her husband was not a diplomat, but the State Dept claimed diplomatic immunity applied anyway. That's why the UK challenged it.

But that wasn't the point. The point was these are two people with extensive government relations, claiming diplomatic immunity and you suggest they serve as an example of US State Department back-channeling and how it could apply to Amanda and Raffaele being acquitted. This is only slightly better than trying to equate fingerprint analysis with mixed DNA analysis.
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 19th May 2020, 11:16 AM   #1819
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,276
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. Let's keep it simple and imagine that the probability of a random fingerprint matches yours at even one point is a generous 50%. Calculate the probability of 18 points matching. Clue: 0.50^18

In other words: vanishingly remote.

Not if there are 34 points being tested. Then the probability of 18 of them matching (and the other 16 not matching) is not at all remote.

Imagine how easily a dishonest prosecutor or journalist could make an innocent person seem like a definitive match, simply by not mentioning those points that didn't match.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 19th May 2020 at 11:18 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 11:49 AM   #1820
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 754
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As Micheli wryly points out, if rape was Guede's motive, he didn't actually finish it off.
Guede’s DNA was found in Meredith’s vagina which meant that Guede had raped Meredith. Even if Guede didn’t rape Meredith, the idea that Amanda and Raffaele would need to back to the cottage to stage a rape is ludicrous. How do you exactly do you stage a rape without actually committing a rape? How exactly would staging a rape help Amanda and Raffaele? If they returned to the cottage would Amanda and Raffaele not worry that they would be seen and would leave more forensic traces in Meredith’s room? The notion of Amanda and Raffaele committing murder with Guede is ridiculous in itself as there are so many holes in the scenario as my post below shows.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11970178

Last edited by Agatha; 20th May 2020 at 12:56 PM.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 12:04 PM   #1821
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,575
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
The notion of Amanda and Raffaele committing murder with Guede is ridiculous in itself as there are so many holes in the scenario as my post below shows. It takes a staggering level stupidity to think it is possible to for Amanda and Raffaele to plan a murder without prior contact or relationship with Guede.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11970178
In convicting the pair in 2009, Judge Massei struggled with a motive for AK and RS participating in what Massei saw as essentially Rudy's crime. As he said, Rudy did not need much motivation in assaulting a young woman in her room.

That's how tenuous it was even for the convicting judge to theorize about it all.

The closest Massei got in shoe-horning AK and RS into this, was by speculating that when they heard the commotion in the victim's room, the pair inexplicably joined in with Rudy.

Why? Massei further speculated (without a cintilla of evidence to support it) that AK was far from home and away from usual social norms, and thus "made a choice for evil".

That's it. Neither Mignini nor Comodi had speculated that way, nor had they entered any evidence to remotely suspect that that had been so. But that did not deter Judge Massei. Massei ignored everything about motive presented at trial and invented his own theory - from whole cloth.

From this vantage point 12 1/2 years later, and with the tabloid press no longer doing a full court press to sluttify Knox, all the 2009 reasoning for guilt looks even more ludicrous.

Who believes this stuff?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 19th May 2020 at 12:07 PM.
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 19th May 2020, 12:15 PM   #1822
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. Let's keep it simple and imagine that the probability of a random fingerprint matches yours at even one point is a generous 50%. Calculate the probability of 18 points matching. Clue: 0.50^18

In other words: vanishingly remote.
The problem with your claim is that you ignore human error. As is often said, DNA doesn't lie. But it's the interpretation of the DNA that results in wrong conclusions. This is the problem with fingerprint identification: human error.

An experiment in the UK tested whether experts would change their minds about fingerprints they had previously examined and identified if they were given information they had not had before.
Quote:
Cognitive neuroscientist Itiel Dror finds that analysis of fingerprint data by human examiners can be ruined by unintentional bias.

In Dror's study with Charlton, the five experts were told they were seeing the erroneously matched fingerprints of Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon man once linked to 2004's terrorist train bombings in Madrid. That he'd been wrongly accused based on fingerprint misidentification was widely known, thus suggesting what an expert determination would be.
What they were actually seeing, however, were fingerprints from other cases that they'd made determinations about years before.

"Not only some, but most, of the fingerprint examiners changed their minds," said Dror, who was far less surprised by the flip-flopping. As an expert in human thought processes and the hidden power of cognitive bias — an array of distortions in the way humans perceive reality — he had a decided advantage.

Three of the five reversed their earlier conclusions to say "no match," and one deemed the prints "inconclusive." Only one expert stuck with his original decision.
I suggest you stop doubling down on something you are so very wrong about. We have enough of that to deal with from Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Nobody knows how many people sit wrongfully convicted in prison due to errors in fingerprint matching. But a new study suggests there could be a thousand or more unknown identification errors a year in the United States.
Criminologist Simon Cole of the University of California at Irvine examined all 22 known cases of fingerprint mistakes made since 1920.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post


In other words ONE case every ten years or so.
Your ability to ignore what does not support your claim is truly amazing. If I'm generous, I might allow that you don't understand the word "known" or maybe you just missed it altogether. If the former, "known" means "within the scope of knowledge". If the latter, I highlighted it for you above. Does that help?

Read this again:

"But a new study suggests there could be a thousand or more unknown identification errors a year in the United States."

The entire point of the study was that the results show that fingerprint mismatching is much more common than previously thought.
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 19th May 2020, 01:06 PM   #1823
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by TruthCalls;13095275[HILITE
]Her husband was not a diplomat,[/hilite] but the State Dept claimed diplomatic immunity applied anyway. That's why the UK challenged it.

But that wasn't the point. The point was these are two people with extensive government relations, claiming diplomatic immunity and you suggest they serve as an example of US State Department back-channeling and how it could apply to Amanda and Raffaele being acquitted. This is only slightly better than trying to equate fingerprint analysis with mixed DNA analysis.
I doubt it escapes any of us that Vixen has failed to address the additional information I gave her...which is not surprising.

But to address your highlighted statement, Mr. Sacoolas was not a diplomat but he was granted diplomatic immunity by the UK. In a 1995 agreement, the UK agreed to extend diplomatic immunity...and this is crucial... to the Administrative and Technical Staff (to which Mr. Sacoolas belonged) if the US agreed to waive such immunity if a crime was committed outside the the course of their governmental duties. So far, this looks like Anne S. should have had her immunity waived by the US as the accident was not within those duties. But not so fast. Upon examination of that agreement, families of those A & T staff members are not included which means that the agreement to waive did not pertain to Mrs. Sacoolas.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-12/...-dunn-s-death/

The UK government accepted that this is true. So Vixen is quite wrong.
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 20th May 2020, 05:31 AM   #1824
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Not if there are 34 points being tested. Then the probability of 18 of them matching (and the other 16 not matching) is not at all remote.

Imagine how easily a dishonest prosecutor or journalist could make an innocent person seem like a definitive match, simply by not mentioning those points that didn't match.
There is zero evidence of dishonesty in either the Scientific Police, the prosecution or the police (bearing in mind the police are not your mates) and are trained to be suspicious so don't be surprised if they disbelieve your story.

The real crooks are defence lawyers who run with schemes designed to undermine solid evidence and people like Vecchiotti who wilfully refused to test the DNA of a suspected murderer despite being ordered to. (She obviously knew privately he did it and that's why she withheld the results from the court(. She was found guilty of gross misconduct and slapped with a €100,000 penalty

.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 20th May 2020, 05:36 AM   #1825
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The problem with your claim is that you ignore human error. As is often said, DNA doesn't lie. But it's the interpretation of the DNA that results in wrong conclusions. This is the problem with fingerprint identification: human error.

An experiment in the UK tested whether experts would change their minds about fingerprints they had previously examined and identified if they were given information they had not had before.


I suggest you stop doubling down on something you are so very wrong about. We have enough of that to deal with from Trump.




Your ability to ignore what does not support your claim is truly amazing. If I'm generous, I might allow that you don't understand the word "known" or maybe you just missed it altogether. If the former, "known" means "within the scope of knowledge". If the latter, I highlighted it for you above. Does that help?

Read this again:

"But a new study suggests there could be a thousand or more unknown identification errors a year in the United States."

The entire point of the study was that the results show that fingerprint mismatching is much more common than previously thought.


Note the word 'could', which means I shall completely disregard the assertion and so should you.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 20th May 2020, 05:39 AM   #1826
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I doubt it escapes any of us that Vixen has failed to address the additional information I gave her...which is not surprising.

But to address your highlighted statement, Mr. Sacoolas was not a diplomat but he was granted diplomatic immunity by the UK. In a 1995 agreement, the UK agreed to extend diplomatic immunity...and this is crucial... to the Administrative and Technical Staff (to which Mr. Sacoolas belonged) if the US agreed to waive such immunity if a crime was committed outside the the course of their governmental duties. So far, this looks like Anne S. should have had her immunity waived by the US as the accident was not within those duties. But not so fast. Upon examination of that agreement, families of those A & T staff members are not included which means that the agreement to waive did not pertain to Mrs. Sacoolas.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-12/...-dunn-s-death/

The UK government accepted that this is true. So Vixen is quite wrong.
Blah blah blah. The UK Home Secretary has signed off the international warrant for arrest so it obviously does not consider this woman immune.

The only people standing in the way of justice is the US state Department, as it did in respect to extradition consideration for Amanda Knox.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
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 20th May 2020, 06:32 AM   #1827
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,575
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Blah blah blah. The UK Home Secretary has signed off the international warrant for arrest so it obviously does not consider this woman immune.

The only people standing in the way of justice is the US state Department, as it did in respect to extradition consideration for Amanda Knox.
Speaking of blah, blah, blah. There was no extradition request. No one knows what you mean by a "consideration". Of course, you're now going to construct some word salad about what you think went on behind the scenes.

This will be fun.
__________________
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 20th May 2020, 12:16 PM   #1828
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is zero evidence of dishonesty in either the Scientific Police, the prosecution or the police (bearing in mind the police are not your mates) and are trained to be suspicious so don't be surprised if they disbelieve your story.

The real crooks are defence lawyers who run with schemes designed to undermine solid evidence and people like Vecchiotti who wilfully refused to test the DNA of a suspected murderer despite being ordered to. (She obviously knew privately he did it and that's why she withheld the results from the court(. She was found guilty of gross misconduct and slapped with a €100,000 penalty

.
Is this nonsense supposed to distract us from Myriad's point which you obviously do not want to address? It doesn't.

I have to laugh at your claim that Vecchiotti knew the killer did it so she tried to hide the result. What is it with you and conspiracy theories? The Knox/Sollecito acquittals are due to the Mafia, the Masons, judges being paid off, defense experts being shills, backdoor political shenanigans, and now Vecchiotti, in a separate case, was deliberately hiding evidence of a killer she had zero connection to outside the case itself? What next? 9/11 was an inside job and Armstrong never walked on the moon?

By the way, Vecchiotti was fined 60K euros, not €100,000. At the time, that would have been about €47,000.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 20th May 2020 at 01:19 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
Old 20th May 2020, 12:25 PM   #1829
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,284
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why would he? Guilt is a question for the courts to decide. Garofano simply assessed the DNA results as an objective scientist. He could not care one way or another about anything else.
But your calim is that the courts are wrong. All of them. Clearly, you do not accept that guilt is for any court to decide. Only you.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 12:25 PM   #1830
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post


Note the word 'could', which means I shall completely disregard the assertion and so should you.
Once again, rather than address the fact that the experiment proved that fingerprint analysis is heavily prone to human error, you fall back on being pedantic.
You are being intellectually dishonest here and it's glaringly obvious.
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 20th May 2020, 01:08 PM   #1831
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Blah blah blah. The UK Home Secretary has signed off the international warrant for arrest so it obviously does not consider this woman immune.

The only people standing in the way of justice is the US state Department, as it did in respect to extradition consideration for Amanda Knox.
Ummm...no, dear. Home Secretary Priti Patel did not sign the Interpol Red Diffusion Notice. He signed the request for extradition from the US which the US denied. Two different things. Requesting extradition does not mean the UK government does not recognize diplomatic immunity. A person with diplomatic immunity can still be extradited if the requested country's government agrees to waive it....which is exactly what the request for extradition was.


By the way:
Quote:
A Red Notice is an international wanted persons notice, but it is not an arrest warrant.
https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-w...es/Red-Notices
Quote:
]Ministers and officials were caught off-guard after the notice was disclosed and were confronted by furious US counterparts, reigniting the bitter diplomatic spat regarding the case.
If Patel had signed the Interpol request, how could the UK gov't have been "caught off guard"?

Quote:
The Mail on Sunday has also learnt that Northamptonshire Police were ‘pressured’ to put out a statement distancing themselves from the Red Notice leak, despite emailing Harry’s family with news of it last week.

At Thursday’s meeting, the senior Ministers also discussed ending the legal loophole that allowed the United States government to insist that Sacoolas was above the law through her husband’s work as a diplomat at the US spy base RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire.
A waiver for criminal immunity drawn up in the 1990s for staff working at the base did not specifically mention spouses, leading to US State Department lawyers to pounce on the loophole and spirit Sacoolas out of the country.
Mr Raab has called this an ‘anomaly’ and vowed to update all US treaties relating to Americans working in the UK.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-request.html

You're still zero for zero.
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 20th May 2020, 01:15 PM   #1832
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Speaking of blah, blah, blah. There was no extradition request. No one knows what you mean by a "consideration". Of course, you're now going to construct some word salad about what you think went on behind the scenes.

This will be fun.
In a large bowl of misinformation, add a cup of spin, a dash of hyperbole, a pinch of assumption, an ad hom or two, and top off with a few non sequiturs.
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 20th May 2020, 02:22 PM   #1833
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,089
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ummm...no, dear. Home Secretary Priti Patel did not sign the Interpol Red Diffusion Notice. He signed the request for extradition from the US which the US denied. Two different things. Requesting extradition does not mean the UK government does not recognize diplomatic immunity. A person with diplomatic immunity can still be extradited if the requested country's government agrees to waive it....which is exactly what the request for extradition was.


By the way:

https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-w...es/Red-Notices


If Patel had signed the Interpol request, how could the UK gov't have been "caught off guard"?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-request.html

You're still zero for zero.
The sad thing is had she waived diplomatic immunity she would have been fined a few thousand pounds and banned from driving (in the UK). In theory she may have been liable for prison, in practice this does not happen in these situations. The consequence of absconding for her is undoubtedly worse than had she faced the music.
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 20th May 2020, 03:02 PM   #1834
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The sad thing is had she waived diplomatic immunity she would have been fined a few thousand pounds and banned from driving (in the UK). In theory she may have been liable for prison, in practice this does not happen in these situations. The consequence of absconding for her is undoubtedly worse than had she faced the music.
I agree that would probably have been the results if she'd stay. And at the beginning, she cooperated fully and took full responsibility for the accident even saying she had no plans to leave the UK. We do know that the UK authorities were told that she would be leaving 'imminently' which she did two days later. But we don't know if she left on her own accord or if she was ordered to leave by a US agency. She may have intended to stay.
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 22nd May 2020, 05:29 AM   #1835
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,744
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Lying by omission? Mignini was cleared of abuse of office.

Only because his mates in the judiciary colluded to extend the case out until it passed the statute of limitations. Sound fair, huh, Vixen.....?



Quote:
Unfortunately if you are in a position of authority, people will make complaints against you, it is a professional hazard. My old boss as a top city insolvency practitioner used to get about fifteen a year from disgruntled bankrupts and dodgy directors claiming he'd undervalued their assets or whatever, when selling them off One guy wrote a letter a day. He used to get these ranting angry letters out so we could all laugh at the sheer mad fury contained therein.

Mignini was censured over Sollecito because Sollecito's counsel made a point of complaining about any official they perceived as not being on their side (Bongiorno even filed a frivolous complaint against Nencini - which was thrown out - for saying a few words to a journalist outside the court room).

One of Mignini's administrative staff omitted to supply a standard notice advising a 'client' of their legal rights (probably rather like the t&c's noblod ever reads anyway). Sollecito had his legal representatives anyway so there was no loss of rights accorded to him in any event.

More cock up than wickedness. Training gap.

Do you really still not know what Mignini (not your ludicrous and unsupported claim of "a member of Mignini's administrative staff") did in respect of this official censure, Vixen? Well, I'll remind you: he declared that Sollecito should be held under a special section of the Italian CPP which allows for incarcerated suspects to be denied access to legal counsel, but only in very specific and extraordinary circumstances. It's clear from reading the Code that these circumstances are intended to essentially comprise terrorism and organised crime - on the premise that lawyers might be used as part of a criminal conspiracy by such suspects.*

Now, Mignini did have the power to invoke this section and deny Sollecito access to a lawyer..... BUT he had to personally (not "adminstrative assistant") present a written reasoning to a judge within 24 (IIRC) hours of having invoked the section. The judge will then rule on whether the PM is justly invoking the section or not. The reason for this safeguard ought to be obvious - perhaps even to you. I dunno though. Now, not only did Mignini not bother to draw up or present this written reasoning, but he then lied in front of the arraignment judge by falsely claiming to have written and lodged the reasoning.

That's what Mignini actually did, Vixen. Just so ya know.


* And clearly, Sollecito could never conceivably have been deemed to fall into any of the groups against whom this denial of access to counsel could ever justly be invoked. I suspect Mignini himself knew that only too well - perhaps that informed his failure to present his written reasoning and then to lie about it...?



Oh, and I'm EXTREMELY impressed that you used to work for "a top city insolvency practitioner"

Last edited by LondonJohn; 22nd May 2020 at 05:32 AM.
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 22nd May 2020, 05:48 AM   #1836
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,744
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ummm...no, dear. Home Secretary Priti Patel did not sign the Interpol Red Diffusion Notice. He signed the request for extradition from the US which the US denied. Two different things. Requesting extradition does not mean the UK government does not recognize diplomatic immunity. A person with diplomatic immunity can still be extradited if the requested country's government agrees to waive it....which is exactly what the request for extradition was.


By the way:

https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-w...es/Red-Notices


If Patel had signed the Interpol request, how could the UK gov't have been "caught off guard"?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-request.html

You're still zero for zero.


Can't help thinking we're heading slightly off-piste here, but....

1) Anne Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity while she was here in the UK. End of. (I see Vixen still mistakenly believes that spouses and dependent children do not share diplomatic immunity, despite already having been corrected on this point. Plus ca change...)

2) Once Anne Sacoolas returned to the US, then technically her diplomatic immunity ceased. Had she remained in the UK, then her diplomatic immunity would have continued until her husband's own diplomatic immunity ended for any reason.

3) Individuals can choose to waive their own diplomatic immunity if they wish. Also, the individual's home country (here the US) can strongly advise the individual to waive his/her diplomatic immunity - often with the threat of internal sanctions if they do not waive - but the home country cannot order a waiver.

4) Now that Sacoolas is back in the US, and now that her UK diplomatic immunity has (automatically) ceased, it's entirely within the UK's right to issue an extradition request to face criminal charges. However, in these sorts of circumstances, where Sacoolas clearly implicitly invoked diplomatic immunity before travelling back to the US, it's extremely unlikely that the US would ever grant extradition: the alleged crime was committed under conditions of diplomatic immunity which Sacoolas invoked, and therefore her diplomatic rights can be expected to extend effectively into perpetuity for any alleged crime which she committed while she was covered by that diplomatic immunity.

5) All of this is of course extremely sad and frustrating for the victim's family. But unfortunately it's just the way of things. I know of several instances, for example, where the dependents of sub-saharan African diplomats have committed fairly serious crimes, including rape and GBH, and they've invoked their own diplomatic immunity and travelled home.

6) As you and others have pointed out several times now, the situation with Anne Sacoolas is almost entirely incomparable - in several major areas - with the situation regarding Knox and potential extradition to Italy.
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 22nd May 2020, 11:02 AM   #1837
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Can't help thinking we're heading slightly off-piste here, but....


3) Individuals can choose to waive their own diplomatic immunity if they wish. Also, the individual's home country (here the US) can strongly advise the individual to waive his/her diplomatic immunity - often with the threat of internal sanctions if they do not waive - but the home country cannot order a waiver.
All you've written is correct with the exception of the highlighted. Individual cannot waive their own immunity:
Quote:
Because the immunity derives from the sovereignty of the Stage, diplomats cannot waive immunity on their own behalf.
Principles of International Law, John Balouziyeh, Esq. Page 196
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 22nd May 2020, 02:57 PM   #1838
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,744
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
All you've written is correct with the exception of the highlighted. Individual cannot waive their own immunity:

Principles of International Law, John Balouziyeh, Esq. Page 196


Oh yes, true. I should have written "they can ask their home government for their immunity to be waived". For example, British diplomats overseas are told that for most minor cases they should ask for their immunity to be rescinded so that they can be held properly accountable. The home state can still refuse to waive immunity of course, but I'd think that's rare.

And as potentially distasteful as it may seem, I'd suggest that almost every nation on Earth, when faced with one of their diplomats (or their spouses/dependents) being investigated for a serious criminal act, would advise that individual a) to claim diplomatic immunity, and b) to repatriate to the home country ASAP. Most right-thinking countries would find some way to censure the person concerned once they returned to the home country: I doubt that Sacoolas' husband's career prospects look all that spectacular at the moment, for example.

But unfortunately at its heart it's an evasion of justice. However, on the flip side, there are sensible and sound reasons why people carrying on diplomatic business in another country (and their in-country spouses/dependents) should carry immunity in this way.

Nothing to do with Amanda Knox, of course - but it's interesting nonetheless to draw the comparison and explain exactly why the two instances are so very different.
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 22nd May 2020, 03:05 PM   #1839
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,850
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh yes, true. I should have written "they can ask their home government for their immunity to be waived". For example, British diplomats overseas are told that for most minor cases they should ask for their immunity to be rescinded so that they can be held properly accountable. The home state can still refuse to waive immunity of course, but I'd think that's rare.

And as potentially distasteful as it may seem, I'd suggest that almost every nation on Earth, when faced with one of their diplomats (or their spouses/dependents) being investigated for a serious criminal act, would advise that individual a) to claim diplomatic immunity, and b) to repatriate to the home country ASAP. Most right-thinking countries would find some way to censure the person concerned once they returned to the home country: I doubt that Sacoolas' husband's career prospects look all that spectacular at the moment, for example.

But unfortunately at its heart it's an evasion of justice. However, on the flip side, there are sensible and sound reasons why people carrying on diplomatic business in another country (and their in-country spouses/dependents) should carry immunity in this way.

Nothing to do with Amanda Knox, of course - but it's interesting nonetheless to draw the comparison and explain exactly why the two instances are so very different.
I agree.
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 23rd May 2020, 05:12 AM   #1840
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 754
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is zero evidence of dishonesty in either the Scientific Police, the prosecution or the police (bearing in mind the police are not your mates) and are trained to be suspicious so don't be surprised if they disbelieve your story.

The real crooks are defence lawyers who run with schemes designed to undermine solid evidence and people like Vecchiotti who wilfully refused to test the DNA of a suspected murderer despite being ordered to. (She obviously knew privately he did it and that's why she withheld the results from the court(. She was found guilty of gross misconduct and slapped with a €100,000 penalty

.
Vixen’s post proves perfectly the points I made in my previous posts :-

“If C&V, Hellman or Bruno-Marcesa had been charged with misconduct, Vixen would be shouting about this from the rooftops and Vixen would be banging on about how bent they were but when the prosecution and convicting judges are charged with misconduct there is a deafening silence from Vixen and no condemnation of them being bent. In Vixen's world corruption never happens from those who work against defendants such as prosecutors, judges who find defendants guilty or experts who speak in favour of the defence. Corruption only happens with people favourable to defendants such as judges who find defendants not guilty, defence lawyers and experts whose testimony is favourable to the defence”.

“Guilters [SNIP] and other members of the TJMK/PMF hate sites have a blind obedience towards people in authority. In their view police/prosecutors are always honest, ethical, hard working and competent. Police/prosecution corruption and misconduct never happens and police/prosecutors would never railroad innocent people. Police/prosecutors are never incompetent. Police/prosecutors must never be criticised. The police/prosecution always have solid evidence and a slam dunk case against defendants. [SNIP] guilters will always defend police/prosecutors such as Mignini regardless of their actions.

A consequence of this belief is that [SNIP] guilters will ignore facts which don’t fit their view :-

• As can be seen from the links below, numerous abuses were committed by the police/prosecution in the case of Amanda and Raffaele. The rights of Amanda and Raffaele were violated during the interrogations, numerous Italian laws were broken, false information was fed to the media, the prosecution engaged in the massive suppression of evidence, destroyed evidence and committed perjury. [SNIP]guilters are so fixed in the view police/prosecutors never commit wrongdoing, they refuse to acknowledge the numerous abuses committed by the prosecution and will never accept police/prosecutors can do anything wrong.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• [SNIP]guilters are so fixed in the belief, police/prosecutors are never incompetent, they refuse to acknowledge the badly handled crime scene. The book Injustice in Perugia was able to devote a whole chapter on how badly the police managed the crime scene.

• [SNIP]guilters are so fixed in the idea police/prosecutors would never railroad innocent people, they refuse to accept the police/prosecution railroaded Amanda and Raffaele when the numerous abuses committed by the police/prosecution makes it blatantly obvious Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded.

[SNIP]guilters slavishly defending the police/prosecution in the case of Amanda and Raffaele regardless of their actions leads to industrial scale hypocrisy where guilters attack people for doing something but have no problem when the police/prosecution do it :-

• [SNIP]guilters attacks Hellman, C&V and the supreme court for being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt prosecutors who committed numerous abuses.

• [SNIP]guilters attacks Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies whilst slavishly defending corrupt police/prosecutors who told numerous lies.

• [SNIP]guilters attacks the supreme court of supposedly breaking Italian law but had no problem with the police breaking numerous Italian laws during the interrogations.

• [SNIP]guilters attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba but had no problem with the brutal treatment Lumumba received at the hands of the police and the police arresting Lumumba with no investigation.

• [SNIP]guilters attacks C&V for withholding evidence but had no problem with Vixen’s idol Stefanoni withholding evidence.

• [SNIP]guilters attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying in court but had no issue with the prosecution lying and committing perjury in court.”
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 10:17 PM.
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.