IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Reply
Old 2nd December 2022, 09:05 AM   #361
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not that I'm aware of.
I also can't find where this was ever addressed, which I find extremely curious. What got me thinking about it was Vixen's comment the other day...

"There is no such court finding. In fact, the Micheli and Massei court found that Guede did not have a weapon. So you just made up that stuff about Guede, based on your own prejudices and fantasies. Trying reading through the evidence with an objective eye."

I would think an "objective eye" would look at this case and acknowledge that the only person who left multiple forensic traces of themselves in the murder room, the only person who is proven to have sexually assaulted Meredith, the only person who had wounds consistent with someone committing a stabbing assault, is logically also the only one who could have committed the murder. But what do I know.

That the defense didn't bring this up in trial, I think, was a major fail.
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 2nd December 2022, 10:18 AM   #362
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I also can't find where this was ever addressed, which I find extremely curious. What got me thinking about it was Vixen's comment the other day...

"There is no such court finding. In fact, the Micheli and Massei court found that Guede did not have a weapon. So you just made up that stuff about Guede, based on your own prejudices and fantasies. Trying reading through the evidence with an objective eye."

I would think an "objective eye" would look at this case and acknowledge that the only person who left multiple forensic traces of themselves in the murder room, the only person who is proven to have sexually assaulted Meredith, the only person who had wounds consistent with someone committing a stabbing assault, is logically also the only one who could have committed the murder. But what do I know.

That the defense didn't bring this up in trial, I think, was a major fail.
Were the reported cuts or any residual trace of the cuts (scars or some kind of specific blood stains) on Guede's hand entered into evidence at any of the trials?

That is, were the reported cuts or any trace attributable to them available as evidence, to be discussed by the prosecution and/or the defense?

Did the prosecution in effect bury the evidence of the reported cuts, essentially but more effectively than it did for the evidence of the seeming semen stain on the pillow?

I ask these questions because if the prosecution had not entered the reported cuts into evidence, was there any practical possibility for the defense to enter them into evidence? It would be difficult for the defense to say much, if anything, about physical "evidence" not officially entered into the case file or as official evidence by the court.
Numbers 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 2nd December 2022, 11:54 AM   #363
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Vixen, Thanks for the source title.

I looked up the title and found on Amazon: Italian Neofascism: The Strategy of Tension and the Politics of Nonreconciliation, by Anna Cento Bull. The publication date given: 1 January 2008. Author information states: Anna Cento Bull is Professor of Italian History and Politics at the University of Bath.

However, this is not a book about Italian law, and Bull is not an expert in Italian law, but rather history and politics. One should be cautious in considering her statements about Italian law in the book, because they may be historically valid - she is writing about a period including the years 1969 - 1980 - but not relevant following the major legal reforms of 1988 - 2006.

While under its former, pre-1988 Code of Criminal Procedure, Italy had an acquittal for insufficient evidence, "which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt", this was eliminated by the 1988 reforms. If the evidence of guilt is missing (in whole or part), insufficient, or contradictory, then the accused is given a full acquittal, the same as an acquittal in which there was no evidence of guilt presented by the prosecutor. In 2002, the Joint Chambers (aka United Sections) of the CSC declared the standard of proof for conviction was proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This BARD standard was adopted as law by the Italian Parliament in 2006, and is presented as CPP Article 533, paragraph 1.*

* Source for this information:

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation; ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, F. Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014
Essay: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A reading guide, by M. Gialuz, section 3.1, The introduction of the standard of "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", p. 37 - 39

Mitja Gialuz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste.
Lupa Luparia is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Milan.
Federica Scarpa is Professor of English Translation in the Dept. of Legal, Language, Interpreting, and Translation Studies at the University of Trieste
A somewhat detailed summary of the 1988 reforms of the Italian judicial system (criminal procedures) that changed, or attempted to change, an inquisitorial system into an adversarial or mixed system, is presented in this 2004 academic paper (obviously, reforms enacted after publication won't be included in the paper's discussion):

Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System; author: Michele Panzavolta

https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/...&context=ncilj

Based on Panzavolta's paper, some important points about the 1930 Code of Criminal Procedure, which many of the judges in the Knox - Sollecito had been trained on, are:

1. The defense lawyer did not participate in the investigation of the investigating judge (who conducted the criminal investigation, and handed off a dossier to the prosecutor for the trial) and was not allowed to be present when the suspect/accused was questioned.

2. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense lawyer was allowed to question or cross-examine witnesses during the trial; they presented questions to the judge who then posed versions of those questions. The defense was allowed to make opening and closing statements opposing the prosecutor's account of the crime and the role of the accused. The defense was allowed to present evidence in favor of the accused.

3. The trial served mainly for the formal reading of the investigative report. The defense was not allowed to object to the reading of any evidence or records discussed in that report prior to it being entered into the trial record. The intent was to present the "truth" as gathered by the supposedly impartial investigating judge no matter how that "truth" had been obtained, even if contrary to rights of the accused or witness (although since the 1930 CPP was put together during the fascist period, rights of individuals may not have been recognized during that period in accordance with democratic values).

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd December 2022 at 11:56 AM.
Numbers 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 2nd December 2022, 11:59 AM   #364
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
John Follain was the prosecution-friendly author of 2011's 'A Death in Italy'. Starting on page 274, this is what he says about Sophie, Amy, and Robin's testimony during the first trial, Feb 13, 2009.
Okay, I've stumbled across a much more full, pro-innocence analysis of the British girls testimony, and how Mignini had used them to paint an unflattering picture of Amanda Knox.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

The piece speaks of the confirmation bias former strangers to Amanda Knox had, who prior to her arrest had very little to say about her - she was literally not notable prior to her arrest. It was only after, once the friends had the fact of her arrest in front of them, that their behavioural criticisms became amplified, and eventually codified by Mignini as 'evidence'. The strange thing, was that even the British girls who said that they'd always, "hate Amanda for her coldness", most were also careful not to appear accusatory of her with regard to the murder.

First and foremost - a warning - this is from the Amanda Knox Case webpage, and is itself anonymous. Frustratingly so. Yet it is itself footnoted. So take that for what it's worth.

Yet it fills in far, far more of John Follain's PR activities FOR the original prosecution, how the public-sphere got filled with anti-Amanda propaganda which circulated in those days virtually unopposed.

It also deals with Follain's claims he'd made in previous newspaper articles about the British Girls, that didn't make it into his eventual 2011 book! That alone is revealing.

My assumption - only an assumption - is that the publisher of the book, St. Martin's Press - insisted in 2011 on a level of fact-checking that Follain's previous tabloid pieces had not.

I won't list the more full exposition of the British girls' testimony as found on the anonymous, but sourced, Amanda Knox page. I just post the link here, and leave it to anyone who is interested to sort things out.

The point being - Vixen's characterization of that testimony is hardly the case. Vixen has yet to respond to her embellished account of it.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd December 2022 at 12:01 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 2nd December 2022, 01:39 PM   #365
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 863
PM Mignini's book

So here it finally is:
Giuliano Mignini: Caso Meredith Kercher - Una vicenda giudiziaria tra due continenti

Judging from the backcover:
Quote:
Due pubblici ministeri indagano su un brutale omicidio avvenuto a Perugia la notte del 1º novembre 2007, vittima una ragazza inglese ventenne. Le indagini della polizia giudiziaria delegata convergono su un ivoriano, una ragazza statunitense e un ragazzo pugliese di ottima famiglia. Concordano anche una ventina di giudici che nel corso degli anni hanno celebrato processi ed emesso condanne. Vengono alla fine assolti con formula dubitativa la statunitense e il pugliese, l’ivoriano sconta in carcere una condanna a sedici anni e mezzo. Ma aver fatto il proprio dovere di magistrato fa scattare l’effetto paradosso: la gogna mediatica internazionale riservata al solo Giuliano Mignini, “colpevole” di avere indagato anche sulla morte di Francesco Narducci. In questo libro potente e illuminante parla finalmente lui, il magistrato che certe indagini e certi processi li ha fatti: la legge, nonostante tutto, rimane sempre uguale per tutti.
google translation:
Quote:
Two prosecutors investigate a brutal murder that took place in Perugia on the night of November 1, 2007, the victim of a twenty-year-old English girl. The investigations of the delegated judicial police converge on an Ivorian, an American girl and an Apulian boy from an excellent family. About twenty judges who over the years have held trials and issued convictions also agree. In the end, the American and the Apulian are acquitted with doubtful formula, the Ivorian serves a sentence of sixteen and a half years in prison. But having done his duty as a magistrate triggers the paradoxical effect: the international media pillory reserved only for Giuliano Mignini, "guilty" of having also investigated the death of Francesco Narducci. In this powerful and enlightening book he finally speaks, the magistrate who made certain investigations and certain processes: the law, despite everything, always remains the same for everyone.

and the preface:
Quote:
Prefazione

Ho sempre sostenuto che il magistrato è una persona, un individuo, al pari di chiunque altro. Nelle sue vene scorre il sangue, nel suo torace pulsa un cuore. Ma, nella sua testa deve risiedere una raffinata attitudine di carattere logico. Come lo stesso autore di questo volume, il Procuratore Giuliano Mignini, testimonia attraverso il racconto della nota vicenda giudiziaria legata al delitto di Meredith Kercher che lo vede protagonista nella doppia veste – come lui stesso afferma – di investigatore e di giurista.

Dalla lettura delle pagine del libro emerge, fin da subito, uno speciale talento di Mignini nell’osservazione dei fatti su cui, solo successivamente, si innestano le ipotesi investigative e mai viceversa. Non c’è innamoramento per un’ipotesi. Tutt’altro.

Ben lo vediamo quando l’autore del libro racconta il suo arrivo alla casa di via della Pergola, teatro del tragico delitto. Dapprima Mignini analizza l’abitazione dall’esterno, notando che la finestra il cui vetro è stato rotto (motivo per il quale si allertano inizialmente le Forze dell’Ordine) non è facilmente raggiungibile salvo scalando o arrampicandosi per qualche metro sulla parete sotto la stessa. Il Magistrato s’avvede immediatamente che non vi è alcun segno, alcuna scalfittura su quel muro tale da provare che un eventuale malintenzionato si fosse introdotto nell’abitazione per quella via. A ciò si aggiunga − realizza Mignini − che sarebbe stato molto più agevole introdursi passando per altre finestre più vicine al terreno e meno visibili a eventuali passanti.

Una volta dentro, il nostro investigatore − mi è facile a questo punto chiamarlo così − si accorge anche che sul davanzale della finestra violata vi sono schegge di vetro con le quali, se qualcuno fosse passato di lì, si sarebbe inevitabilmente ferito. Ma non c’era alcuna traccia ematica appunto a conferma che la rottura di quel vetro altro non poteva essere che un depistaggio.

Ecco cosa vuol dire agire con metodo: prima osservare e solo poi formulare ipotesi capaci di cogliere un collegamento logico fra i fatti osservati e l’ipotesi formulata a riprova della stessa.

Un buon investigatore, un buon magistrato si riconosce proprio da quell’attitudine – che lo stesso autore di questo libro si riconosce – a collegare fatti o comportamenti distanti tra loro nel tempo o nello spazio. Quest’attitudine costituisce il vero filo rosso del racconto che si snoda nelle pagine di questo libro. Ed è per questa ragione che, come docente, ne consiglio la lettura anche agli studenti e ai giovani giuristi che vogliano intraprendere la carriera magistratuale. Un libro dunque, questo di Mignini, rivolto non solo ad un pubblico di esperti.

Tanto sul piano letterario, quanto sul giudiziario, è di insegnamento la scelta legata alla cronologia dei fatti. Non per come avvennero, ma nell’ordine in cui si palesarono allo stesso Procuratore. In questo modo il lettore può rivivere con l’autore le sensazioni, le impressioni, le conoscenze, le deduzioni proprio nell’ordine in cui il protagonista investigatore le visse.

La vicenda narrata in questo libro ha, inoltre, la peculiarità di svilupparsi su piani diversi. Se, da un lato, la storia narra di una giovane vittima di un delitto efferato e di tre altrettanto giovani accusati dello stesso delitto; dall’altro, la storia narra anche delle pressioni politiche, mediatiche e degli ingiustificati attacchi all’accusa. Quanto alla pressioni politiche, nel libro sono esplicitamente riportate, unitamente alle critiche che dalle più alte istituzioni degli States furono rivolte sia ai magistrati inquirenti sia allo stesso sistema giudiziario italiano. Sistema del quale c’è prova che gli americani furono ben lungi da coglierne tanto la lettera quanto lo spirito.

Su queste pressioni politiche si innestò una stampa innocentista d’oltreoceano. Stampa che, ancora oggi, tace circostanze di non secondaria importanza come la condanna definitiva per calunnia subita da Amanda Knox.

Una brutta vicenda quella narrata da Mignini in questo volume.

Brutta per la giovane età della vittima: Meredith, Metz per gli amici, come ricorda lo stesso Mignini. Brutta per la giovane età degli imputati: Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede. Brutta per le “interferenze” che, in particolare, il processo a Knox e Sollecito ha dovuto subire.

Mignini, a tal proposito, si sofferma, nelle pagine conclusive del suo libro, sull’operato della V sezione della Corte di Cassazione. Tale Sezione, contraddicendo le precedenti indicazioni della I sezione della stessa Corte di Cassazione, ha annullato la sentenza di condanna degli imputati Knox e Sollecito da parte della Corte d’Assise d’Appello di Firenze, decretando essa stessa l’assoluzione degli imputati. Un fatto questo tanto grave quanto difficilmente comprensibile. Il giudice fiorentino, infatti, non poteva che attenersi alle indicazioni della I sezione della Corte di Cassazione. La V sezione, non essendo giudice di merito, non poteva poi né condannare né assolvere alcuno.

Eppure ciò è accaduto e, aggiungo io, proprio per questa ragione se giudizialmente il caso è chiuso, ancora aperto resta agli occhi di una larga parte dell’opinione pubblica.

Mi preme, infine, a lato della vicenda giudiziaria, tornare sulla letterarietà del testo in oggetto. In tal senso, singolari quanto gradevoli per il lettore sia le digressioni autobiografiche (l’infanzia, la scomparsa del padre...) sia le digressioni storiche (dalle origini etrusche dei luoghi narrati al sobborgo di Croydon, luogo di provenienza di Meredith, evocativo di una parte della storia spagnola legata a Francisco Franco). Sullo sfondo sempre presenti anche riferimenti geografici che permettono al lettore di meglio contestualizzare il tutto.

Come spero di aver mostrato in questa prefazione, tante sono le ragioni per attraversare le pagine di questo libro e apprendere, forse per la prima volta, particolari decisivi che sono rimasti celati al grande pubblico.

Simona C. Sagnotti *

* Professore ordinario di Filosofia del Diritto presso l’Università degli Studi di Perugia. Dove insegna anche Informatica giuridica, Logica giuridica e criminologia giudiziaria; oltre a Epistemologia e prova penale nel Corso di Alta Formazione in Scienze Criminologiche e Tecniche di Indagine
google translation:
Quote:
Preface

I have always maintained that the magistrate is a person, an individual, like anyone else. Blood flows in his veins, a heart beats in his chest. But, a refined aptitude of a logical nature must reside in his head. As the author of this volume himself, the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, testifies through the story of the well-known judicial affair linked to the crime of Meredith Kercher which sees him as the protagonist in the double role - as he himself states - of investigator and jurist.

From reading the pages of the book, Mignini's special talent in observing the facts immediately emerges on which, only later, the investigative hypotheses are grafted and never vice versa. There is no falling in love with a hypothesis. Far from it.

We see it clearly when the author of the book recounts his arrival at the house in via della Pergola, the scene of the tragic crime. At first Mignini analyzes the house from the outside, noting that the window whose glass has been broken (which is why the police are initially alerted) is not easily accessible except by scaling or climbing a few meters on the wall below it . The Magistrate immediately notices that there is no sign, no scratch on that wall such as to prove that a possible attacker had entered the house by that route. Add to this − Mignini realizes − that it would have been much easier to enter through other windows closer to the ground and less visible to any passers-by.

Once inside, our investigator - it's easy for me to call him that at this point - also notices that on the sill of the violated window there are glass splinters with which, if someone had passed by there, they would have inevitably been injured. But there was no trace of blood precisely to confirm that the breaking of that glass could only be a misdirection.

This is what it means to act methodically: first observe and only then formulate hypotheses capable of grasping a logical connection between the observed facts and the hypothesis formulated as proof of the same.

A good investigator, a good magistrate is recognized precisely by that attitude - which the author of this book himself recognizes - to connect facts or behaviors distant from each other in time or space. This attitude is the true red thread of the story that unfolds in the pages of this book. And it is for this reason that, as a teacher, he also recommends reading it to students and young jurists who want to pursue a judicial career. A book therefore, this one by Mignini, aimed not only at an audience of experts.

Both on the literary level and on the judiciary, the choice linked to the chronology of the facts is teaching. Not because of how they happened, but in the order in which they were revealed to the Prosecutor himself. In this way the reader can relive with the author the sensations, impressions, knowledge, deductions precisely in the order in which the protagonist investigator lived them.

The story told in this book also has the peculiarity of developing on different levels. If, on the one hand, the story tells of a young victim of a heinous crime and of three equally young people accused of the same crime; on the other hand, the story also tells of political and media pressure and unjustified attacks on the prosecution. As for political pressure, they are explicitly reported in the book, together with the criticisms that the highest institutions in the States addressed both to the investigating magistrates and to the Italian judicial system itself. A system of which there is evidence that the Americans were far from grasping both the letter and the spirit.

An overseas innocentist press was grafted onto these political pressures. Press that, even today, is silent on circumstances of no less importance such as the definitive sentence for slander suffered by Amanda Knox.

A bad story that narrated by Mignini in this volume.

Ugly for the young age of the victim: Meredith, Metz for friends, as Mignini himself recalls. Bad for the young age of the defendants: Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede. Bad for the "interferences" that, in particular, the trial of Knox and Sollecito had to suffer.

In this regard, Mignini dwells, in the final pages of his book, on the work of the V section of the Court of Cassation. This Section, contradicting the previous indications of the First Section of the same Court of Cassation, annulled the sentence of conviction of the defendants Knox and Sollecito by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, itself decreeing the acquittal of the defendants. This fact is as serious as it is difficult to understand. The Florentine judge, in fact, could only follow the indications of the I section of the Court of Cassation. The V section, not being a judge of the merits, could then neither condemn nor acquit anyone.

Yet this happened and, I would add, for this very reason if the case is judicially closed, it still remains open in the eyes of a large part of public opinion.

Finally, on the side of the legal case, I would like to return to the literary nature of the text in question. In this sense, both the autobiographical digressions (childhood, the disappearance of the father...) and the historical digressions (from the Etruscan origins of the places narrated to the suburb of Croydon, Meredith's place of origin, evocative of a part of Spanish history linked to Francisco Franco). In the background there are also always geographical references that allow the reader to better contextualize everything.

As I hope I have shown in this preface, there are many reasons for traversing the pages of this book and learning, perhaps for the first time, decisive details that have remained hidden from the general public.
Simona C. Sagnotti *

* Full Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of Perugia. where she also teaches legal informatics, legal logic and judicial criminology; in addition to Epistemology and criminal evidence in the Advanced Training Course in Criminological Sciences and Investigation Techniques

I'd say, that PM Mignini is just selling the same old whines in a new bottle... Just my 0,02 Euro.
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 02:59 PM   #366
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
(And by the way, Hellmann has already been overturned, by Chieffi. So I immediately doubt your knowledge and/or your source of information.)
He appointed the bent Vecchiotti and Conti, did he not, resurrected from the grave by Marasca-Bruno despite being firmly buried by Nencini?
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 03:00 PM   #367
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
From where/whom?
From the Great Horse's Mouth himself.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 03:03 PM   #368
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Vixen, you and other guilters are the only ones who are saying that the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was for "insufficient evidence". The official rubric in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report is that the acquittal is because the accused did not commit the act. The motivation report conclusively shows that there was no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito were guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher. That CSC judgment was published 7 years ago. You and a very few others appear to be so biased that you refuse to accept the truth and wallow in lies and deceptions.

Vixen, what's the source of this? Was it a communication from the grapevine? Was it in a reputable, responsible media or government report?

If (hypothetically) the Italian Parliament passed a law that overturned an existing judicial decision in a way detrimental to the human rights of an individual (or company or organization) who had benefited from that decision, that would be a violation of Convention Article 6. That is because tribunals (courts) are, according to the words of the Convention, to be independent. The law cannot be used to change a previous court decision to an accused person's detriment, but could be changed only to alter future decisions in cases not yet before the courts.

Italy has already lost a group of cases before the ECHR on that kind of issue, except it was not a criminal matter, but one involving salaries and pensions. The matter is now before the Committee of Ministers.

See:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-28264
What about the human rights of the victim's family? Are they not entitled to see justice for the departure of their loved ones?
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 03:17 PM   #369
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
John Follain was the prosecution-friendly author of 2011's 'A Death in Italy'. Starting on page 274, this is what he says about Sophie, Amy, and Robin's testimony during the first trial, Feb 13, 2009.
- the three thought that the Perugian police had 'paraded them' in front of photographers, even preventing their parents from being seen with them

- Robyn testified, criticizing Amanda's 'exuberant character', her bathroom cleanliness, and acting coldly after the murder.

- She testified about the condoms and toy-vibrator left in the 'beauty case' in the bathroom that the victim and Amanda had shared. It was strange, acc. to Robyn, and she reported it had left M. uncomfortable.

- while they were waiting to testify, a Perugian policeman chatted with them outside the courtroom about the case. He boasted about bugging a prison conversation between Amanda and her mother.

- Sophie reported that Amanda was 'pretty open' about her sex life, and confirmed the contents of the beauty case.

- Sophie report feeling a coldness from Amanda at the police station.

- Mignini showed Sophie a picture of the victim's bloody sweatshirt, without preparing her first.

- "Everyone was crying except for Amanda," then Follain wrote, '(but) it wasn't the kind of thing Sophie had meant to say, because she hadn't wanted to sound as if she was accusing Amanda.'

- 'For Sophie, owning a vibrator didn't mean that Amanda had killed Meredith, but showing it off (in the bathroom) had struck Meredith as weird.'

- He did not recount Amy's testimony.

- Back in England, Sophie reflected on the Feb 14 'All You Need Is Love' T-shirt Knox wore to court. Follain, accessing her very thoughts, wrote in Sophie's voice, 'It's ridiculous, Amanda is crazy.'
That is the sum total of what Follain reports as the English friends' views of Knox, nowhere near the harsh slander that Vixen posted above, claiming to simply be citing the English friends. This is from the most prosecution-friendly author there was.

Is there any reason you omitted to mention Amy wanted to hit Knox, a normal home counties young woman moved to want to exact violence on someone she barely knew, such was the severely provocative nature of Knox' bullying, a continuation IMV of Knox' bullying of Mez earlier, and still on an adrenaline high after the 'extreme sensations' and being up all night coving their tracks. My theory is that Knox saw Mez' friends as an extension of Mez, hence the contemptuous and disrespectful behaviour towards them at the Questura, her way of saying she had put the priggish stuck up English girl in her place for having constantly snubbed and excluded her from her English clique, making Knox spend Halloween alone, whilst Sollecito studied for his exams, pounding the street in tears looking for a friend and then going off next day to have a pizza and video with the girls, complaining about her battery operated dildo in the bathroom and failing to flush the loo, stealing the handsome Italian skier downstairs and then, the last straw of all, stealing her job at Le Chic (she believed). Yes, a horrid bully and a thoroughly nasty character.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 03:20 PM   #370
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Were the reported cuts or any residual trace of the cuts (scars or some kind of specific blood stains) on Guede's hand entered into evidence at any of the trials?

That is, were the reported cuts or any trace attributable to them available as evidence, to be discussed by the prosecution and/or the defense?

Did the prosecution in effect bury the evidence of the reported cuts, essentially but more effectively than it did for the evidence of the seeming semen stain on the pillow?

I ask these questions because if the prosecution had not entered the reported cuts into evidence, was there any practical possibility for the defense to enter them into evidence? It would be difficult for the defense to say much, if anything, about physical "evidence" not officially entered into the case file or as official evidence by the court.
There are slides of the cuts on Guede's hand available. They are quite superficial compared to some of the knife cuts you can see on Google of victims who tried to defend themselves by grabbing the blade.


The merits trial did cover all angles from all sides.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 03:24 PM   #371
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
A somewhat detailed summary of the 1988 reforms of the Italian judicial system (criminal procedures) that changed, or attempted to change, an inquisitorial system into an adversarial or mixed system, is presented in this 2004 academic paper (obviously, reforms enacted after publication won't be included in the paper's discussion):

Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System; author: Michele Panzavolta

https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/...&context=ncilj

Based on Panzavolta's paper, some important points about the 1930 Code of Criminal Procedure, which many of the judges in the Knox - Sollecito had been trained on, are:

1. The defense lawyer did not participate in the investigation of the investigating judge (who conducted the criminal investigation, and handed off a dossier to the prosecutor for the trial) and was not allowed to be present when the suspect/accused was questioned.

2. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense lawyer was allowed to question or cross-examine witnesses during the trial; they presented questions to the judge who then posed versions of those questions. The defense was allowed to make opening and closing statements opposing the prosecutor's account of the crime and the role of the accused. The defense was allowed to present evidence in favor of the accused.

3. The trial served mainly for the formal reading of the investigative report. The defense was not allowed to object to the reading of any evidence or records discussed in that report prior to it being entered into the trial record. The intent was to present the "truth" as gathered by the supposedly impartial investigating judge no matter how that "truth" had been obtained, even if contrary to rights of the accused or witness (although since the 1930 CPP was put together during the fascist period, rights of individuals may not have been recognized during that period in accordance with democratic values).
It was always the case that the defence didn't cross-examine or challenge the prosecutor directly, it always was via cross-examination of the witnesses either side put forward.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 03:29 PM   #372
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,259
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What about the human rights of the victim's family? Are they not entitled to see justice for the departure of their loved ones?
Sure. But that's not served by your witchhunt against innocent people who didn't commit the crime.
Jack by the hedge 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 2nd December 2022, 03:33 PM   #373
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
So here it finally is:
Giuliano Mignini: Caso Meredith Kercher - Una vicenda giudiziaria tra due continenti

Judging from the backcover:

google translation:

and the preface:

google translation:

I'd say, that PM Mignini is just selling the same old whines in a new bottle... Just my 0,02 Euro.


Sounds interesting. Especially:


"The Florentine judge, in fact, could only follow the indications of the I section of the Court of Cassation. The V section, not being a judge of the merits, could then neither condemn nor acquit anyone.

Yet this happened and, I would add, for this very reason if the case is judicially closed, it still remains open in the eyes of a large part of public opinion
."
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 03:43 PM   #374
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,259
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Is there any reason you omitted to mention Amy wanted to hit Knox, a normal home counties young woman moved to want to exact violence on someone she barely knew ...
Hostility to someone who was put on trial for the murder of her friend? Hmm. Clearly it's inconceivable that a young woman (especially a normal young woman and doubly so if she's from the home counties) taking against a person merely because they were accused of the horrible murder of her friend. No. Surely this must be independent proof Knox was a despicable character.
Jack by the hedge 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 2nd December 2022, 03:55 PM   #375
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Hostility to someone who was put on trial for the murder of her friend? Hmm. Clearly it's inconceivable that a young woman (especially a normal young woman and doubly so if she's from the home counties) taking against a person merely because they were accused of the horrible murder of her friend. No. Surely this must be independent proof Knox was a despicable character.
In the questura when no-one had been formally told yet that it was Meredith Kercher, let alone cause of death?

At that point none of the friends could have suspected Knox would be charged and convicted of murder and sexual assault (= Aggravated Murder).


Stop trying to downplay Knox' thoroughly outrageous behaviour.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 04:08 PM   #376
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sounds interesting. Especially:

"The Florentine judge, in fact, could only follow the indications of the I section of the Court of Cassation. The V section, not being a judge of the merits, could then neither condemn nor acquit anyone.

Yet this happened and, I would add, for this very reason if the case is judicially closed, it still remains open in the eyes of a large part of public opinion
."
It is interesting, that's for sure. It's interesting in that Mignini's book seems stuck in the first few days or weeks of the investigation, where - in fact - Mignini allowed his theories to drive the evidence. He still thinks Romanelli's window is the least likely access to the upper floor of the cottage. (Note the bars subsequently added to the window to prevent break-ins!) Note that the balcony at the side is fully exposed to the street, lit from a street lamp on the road.





The book sounds like a restatement of the case which he lost! What's the definition of insanity?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd December 2022 at 04:10 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 2nd December 2022, 04:11 PM   #377
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What about the human rights of the victim's family? Are they not entitled to see justice for the departure of their loved ones?
Yes! Absolutely. Yet justice is not served by a wrongful 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 2nd December 2022, 04:17 PM   #378
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Is there any reason you omitted to mention Amy.....
I was summarizing what John Follain wrote about the British friends, I thought I'd been clear about that. In his book, Follain omitted most of the testimony of the friends, mentioning only Sophie and Robyn (unless I have missed some.)

Remember, Follain wrote his book for St. Martin's Press while Knox and Sollecito stood provisionally convicted by the Massei court. Even while convicted, Follain reported that the British friends did not want to testify at trial in such a way as to seem to be accusing Amanda.

My bet is that as the 2011 trial progressed, and when even the English press was reporting that the DNA evidence had fallen apart, that most of the friends refused to cooperate with Follain for his book. All that, despite their views of Knox's 'character' - which they did not want taken as an accusation about her with regard to the charges.

I do note, though, that you have refused to admit all this about the British friends, still claiming that your own slander against Knox is taken from them.
__________________
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 2nd December 2022, 04:19 PM   #379
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Vixen claims that Luca Altieri is a liar, perjuring himself in court 3X: 1) when he said that he’d overheard a medical first responder discussing what he’d seen in Kercher’s bedroom with a policeman and relating that to RS and AK, 2) that he saw Battistelli enter Kercher’s bedroom briefly, and 3) when he says he saw Meredith’s phones on the table at VdP.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Altieri claimed Battistelli entered the room and lifed the duvet. This is another lie from Altieri because Battistelli denies he did any such thing. I know whose testimony I prefer. Altieri has shown himself to be an unreliable witness (cf the mobile phones). In any case, there is no way Battistelli would report anything back to Altieri.
This is all based on the belief that Altieri was lying when he said he saw two phones on the kitchen table and they were referred to as Meredith's by those there (Feb 6, 2009 testimony). But, Battistelli says he did not bring Meredith's phones to VdP, had not even seen them, and that the phone Altieri saw was his own:

Quote:
Judge Massei: You [Battistelli] said that the cell-phones had been left at the Police station.

Battistelli: I didn’t even see them.

Judge Massei: You didn’t see them, neither the first nor the second one.

Battistelli: And not even the second one.

Judge Massei: You left when the first cell-phone was found, you received news later about
the second one, also because unfortunately we don’t have the transcripts
and so we’re going by what we remember and this is our fault, and similarly
will be a problem for others. So do you confirm this…

Battistelli: Yes. There was only one cell-phone, my private one…

Altieri, who had claimed the day before to see the phones on the table, immediately responded saying he wished to clarify his previous statement about them:

Quote:
Altieri: With regards to the matter of the telephones, I would like to mention something and make a clarification so that the matter of the telephones doesn’t undermine the reliability of my testimony which I believe is quite reliable.

Judge Massei: Yes, right the reliability, you have to tell the truth.

Altieri: Yes, I always tell the truth and only the truth. The clarification is this, I mean
in coming here yesterday I have put myself, I came with, let’s say, an
attitude that would prevent any possible persuasion by any particular lawyer
to make me say that I went beyond what I effectively remembered. This
attitude that I have assumed together with, basically with the pressure of the
questions by the Prosecution, of the lady, made me … of the Prosecutor,
made me in this case, regarding the misunderstanding about whether that
telephone was on the table, whether it was the one that the officers of the
Postal Police referred to, meant that I went against this hypothesis that I
could have misunderstood this thing. Reflecting on this afterwards basically
without this… I realize that it was possible, just as the Prosecutor wanted to
highlight, a possible and human misunderstanding on the fact that the
mobile phones that they were referring to was one of the mobile phones
possibly on the table. Furthermore I remembered the yellow post-it with the
cell phone numbers on it that if I’m not mistaken I also mentioned it in my
deposition in December before the Prosecutor. So about having insisted on
the fact that I saw this and that I was sure about it… That telephone, I take
a step back, I honestly remember that on the table there was at least one
cell phone and I won’t doubt anymore… I mean I don’t want to put into
doubt the fact that the reference to the cell-phones wasn’t… in the sense
that maybe they didn’t refer to this cell phone on the table, but to some cell phones that probably, as has been said, had been left in headquarters.


Judge Massei: You say you saw…

Altieri: I have doubts about this thing for the reasons I’ve just explained.
(Testimony Feb. 7, 2009)

What it boils down to is that Altieri wasn't lying...he had no motive to lie...but a miscommunication. In the confusion of everything happening, he assumed the phone he saw on the table was a phone everyone was talking about: Meredith's. But over the night, he thought about it and realized it was a misunderstanding.
There follows more clarification but it's long so I won't post it here, but the link to it is posted above.

Vixen believes Altieri is lying rather than accept it was just an honest mistake just as she believes Altieri is lying about how he found out that Meredith's throat had been cut and that he told Sollecito and Amanda in the car. When asked if anyone else overheard the discussion, Altieri says Paola was with him. If he were lying, I doubt he'd have said that as she was present and being questioned, too.
As for Battistelli entering the room or not, it does not make sense that he would not do what Altieri said he did: enter briefly to lift up the duvet in order to see if Kercher was dead or just unconscious. For all he knew at that moment, she could still have been still alive and in need of medical assistance immediately.

There is no logical reason for Altieri to perjure himself three times for Sollecito whom he had never met before Nov. 2. Claiming that it was a 'favor for another guy' is certainly not logical.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 04:19 PM   #380
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 863
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sounds interesting. Especially:


"The Florentine judge, in fact, could only follow the indications of the I section of the Court of Cassation. The V section, not being a judge of the merits, could then neither condemn nor acquit anyone.

Yet this happened and, I would add, for this very reason if the case is judicially closed, it still remains open in the eyes of a large part of public opinion
."

Yes, interesting, because (despite wrong):
Quote:
"The Florentine judge, in fact, could only follow the indications of the I section of the Court of Cassation."
confirms, despite Nencini's statements, that the second appeal in Florece was only a show trial.

Quote:
The V section, not being a judge of the merits, could then neither condemn nor acquit anyone.
is simply false, they could acquit and they did. (Art. 620. l CPP)

Quote:
Yet this happened and, I would add, for this very reason if the case is judicially closed, it still remains open in the eyes of a large part of public opinion.
That might be so, but it doesn't matter... Same old whines in a new bottle...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 04:22 PM   #381
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In the questura when no-one had been formally told yet that it was Meredith Kercher, let alone cause of death?
A silly observation. Regardless of whether or not anyone had 'formally' been told, it was well known who it was, and what had happened.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
At that point none of the friends could have suspected Knox would be charged and convicted of murder and sexual assault (= Aggravated Murder).
And at that point Knox was a footnote to people's narratives.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop trying to downplay Knox' thoroughly outrageous behaviour.
Her 'behaviour' was only relevant with regard to the murder charge. Still, if you cling to this narrative of 'Knox's thoroughly outrageous behaviour', you are also arguing for Knox being a suspect from the git-go.

You need to pick a lane, as in other posts you claimed that Knox surprised the interrogators Nov 5/6 with a sudden and unexpected confession.
__________________
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 2nd December 2022, 04:22 PM   #382
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What about the human rights of the victim's family? Are they not entitled to see justice for the departure of their loved ones?
Of course. And they did - the rapist/murder Guede was convicted and served a sentence.

However, because of screwy Italian laws, the sentence was shorter than one he would have served had he received a full trial, rather than a fast-track (abbreviated) trial.
Numbers 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 2nd December 2022, 04:36 PM   #383
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
A somewhat detailed summary of the 1988 reforms of the Italian judicial system (criminal procedures) that changed, or attempted to change, an inquisitorial system into an adversarial or mixed system, is presented in this 2004 academic paper (obviously, reforms enacted after publication won't be included in the paper's discussion):

Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System; author: Michele Panzavolta

https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/...&context=ncilj

Based on Panzavolta's paper, some important points about the 1930 Code of Criminal Procedure, which many of the judges in the Knox - Sollecito had been trained on, are:

1. The defense lawyer did not participate in the investigation of the investigating judge (who conducted the criminal investigation, and handed off a dossier to the prosecutor for the trial) and was not allowed to be present when the suspect/accused was questioned.

2. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense lawyer was allowed to question or cross-examine witnesses during the trial; they presented questions to the judge who then posed versions of those questions. The defense was allowed to make opening and closing statements opposing the prosecutor's account of the crime and the role of the accused. The defense was allowed to present evidence in favor of the accused.

3. The trial served mainly for the formal reading of the investigative report. The defense was not allowed to object to the reading of any evidence or records discussed in that report prior to it being entered into the trial record. The intent was to present the "truth" as gathered by the supposedly impartial investigating judge no matter how that "truth" had been obtained, even if contrary to rights of the accused or witness (although since the 1930 CPP was put together during the fascist period, rights of individuals may not have been recognized during that period in accordance with democratic values).
Originally Posted by Vixen;13958149[HILITE
]It was always the case that the defence didn't cross-examine or challenge the prosecutor directly, it always was via cross-examination of the witnesses either side put forward.[/hilite]
Your post demonstrates an unfortunate misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the statement in my post, which is derived from Panzavolta's paper.

Short of creating a drawing of the concepts, here is a reworded statement:

The prosecutor was not allowed to directly question or examine witnesses. The questioning and cross-examination of any witness were accomplished by the prosecutor submitting questions to the judge, who then posed them (possibly with changes) to the witness.

The defense lawyer was not allowed to directly question or examine witnesses. The questioning and cross-examination of any witness were accomplished by the defense lawyer submitting questions to the judge, who then posed them (possibly with changes) to the witness.

In an adversarial trial, the prosecutor conducts a direct examination of each witness for the prosecution and cross-examines each witness for the defense, while the defense lawyer conducts a direct examination of each witness for the defense and cross-examines each witness for the prosecution.

I hope my revised statement is understandable to you.

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd December 2022 at 04:50 PM.
Numbers 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 2nd December 2022, 04:38 PM   #384
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
So here it finally is:
Giuliano Mignini: Caso Meredith Kercher - Una vicenda giudiziaria tra due continenti

Judging from the backcover:

google translation:

and the preface:

google translation:

I'd say, that PM Mignini is just selling the same old whines in a new bottle... Just my 0,02 Euro.
This is the Donald Trump playbook a la Italia: cry 'witch hunt', victimization, persecution/fake news by the press and political interference. There are always the gullible who fall for that.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 05:33 PM   #385
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He appointed the bent Vecchiotti and Conti, did he not, resurrected from the grave by Marasca-Bruno despite being firmly buried by Nencini?

No, you're still not understanding this.

The Hellmann verdict and MR was rendered null by the Chieffi SC panel's verdict.

The evidence and testimony introduced in the Hellmann court remained part of the trial record, to be used as required by any subsequent court.

And indeed, the Marasca SC panel chose (correctly) to refer to the evidence and testimony supplied by Conti and Vecchiotti (AKA "the bent C&V" LMAO) as part of its own verdict and reasoning.

Personally, I can't see how this concept is at all difficult to understand. Mileages vary though, I guess.
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 2nd December 2022, 05:33 PM   #386
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
From the Great Horse's Mouth himself.

And who is the Great Horse in this scenario of yours?
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 2nd December 2022, 05:37 PM   #387
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What about the human rights of the victim's family? Are they not entitled to see justice for the departure of their loved ones?

Yes, they are. And in this case, they did: the (sole) killer of their family member - Rudy Guede - was correctly convicted of her murder.

It's a scandalous shame that Mignini put the Kercher family through so much unnecessary heartache, confusion and bewilderment by way of his bogus, unlawful and incorrect pursuit of Knox and Sollecito as co-perpetrators of this crime. Perhaps you should ask Mignini if he feels any guilt or shame for the disgusting actions of him and the Perugia police regarding the investigation and prosecution of Knox and Sollecito.
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 2nd December 2022, 05:38 PM   #388
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There are slides of the cuts on Guede's hand available. They are quite superficial compared to some of the knife cuts you can see on Google of victims who tried to defend themselves by grabbing the blade.


The merits trial did cover all angles from all sides.

Oh good. We're back on the "merits court supremacy" bollocks again!
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 2nd December 2022, 05:40 PM   #389
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was always the case that the defence didn't cross-examine or challenge the prosecutor directly, it always was via cross-examination of the witnesses either side put forward.

Uhhhhhmmmmmmmmm....... the defence in a criminal trial never cross-examines the prosecutor directly.

Wow.
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 2nd December 2022, 06:05 PM   #390
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I was summarizing what John Follain wrote about the British friends, I thought I'd been clear about that. In his book, Follain omitted most of the testimony of the friends, mentioning only Sophie and Robyn (unless I have missed some.)

Remember, Follain wrote his book for St. Martin's Press while Knox and Sollecito stood provisionally convicted by the Massei court. Even while convicted, Follain reported that the British friends did not want to testify at trial in such a way as to seem to be accusing Amanda.

My bet is that as the 2011 trial progressed, and when even the English press was reporting that the DNA evidence had fallen apart, that most of the friends refused to cooperate with Follain for his book. All that, despite their views of Knox's 'character' - which they did not want taken as an accusation about her with regard to the charges.

I do note, though, that you have refused to admit all this about the British friends, still claiming that your own slander against Knox is taken from them.
The DNA evidence did not fall apart. That was a lie by Vecchiotti, Hellmann and Marasca-Bruno.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 06:06 PM   #391
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes, they are. And in this case, they did: the (sole) killer of their family member - Rudy Guede - was correctly convicted of her murder.

It's a scandalous shame that Mignini put the Kercher family through so much unnecessary heartache, confusion and bewilderment by way of his bogus, unlawful and incorrect pursuit of Knox and Sollecito as co-perpetrators of this crime. Perhaps you should ask Mignini if he feels any guilt or shame for the disgusting actions of him and the Perugia police regarding the investigation and prosecution of Knox and Sollecito.
The first sentence is just your fairy tale fantasy. None of the courts found what you describe, no matter how much you prefer it.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 06:07 PM   #392
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh good. We're back on the "merits court supremacy" bollocks again!
That is the court that weighs up the evidence and establishes the facts of the case.



That is the important court if you want to make sure your evidence is heard.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 06:11 PM   #393
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No, you're still not understanding this.

The Hellmann verdict and MR was rendered null by the Chieffi SC panel's verdict.

The evidence and testimony introduced in the Hellmann court remained part of the trial record, to be used as required by any subsequent court.

And indeed, the Marasca SC panel chose (correctly) to refer to the evidence and testimony supplied by Conti and Vecchiotti (AKA "the bent C&V" LMAO) as part of its own verdict and reasoning.

Personally, I can't see how this concept is at all difficult to understand. Mileages vary though, I guess.

That is incorrect. The greater part of Hellmann's court was evsicerated but a small part remains valid.


Consider this: if Hellmann was bribed to throw the case and the defendants released from a rightfully convicted prison sentence, does the verdict of Hellmann and Marasca-Bruno vis-a-vis Vecchiotti still stand, if found out?

Think about it.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 2nd December 2022, 06:23 PM   #394
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The DNA evidence did not fall apart. That was a lie by Vecchiotti, Hellmann and Marasca-Bruno.
The DNA evidence fell apart, as later sustained as per this peer reviewed article from Dr. Peter Gill. It was printed in Forensic Science International (Genetics).

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/...033-3/fulltext

I know, I know, I know, you're now going to claim that Peter Gill, Forensic Science International, as well as the peer reviewers are part of the conspiracy.

The following is the Editorial Board for FSI(G), comprised of 40 individuals, Peter Gill being one of them, who are experts in the field. One, Vincenzo Pascali, is Italian.

https://www.fsigenetics.com/content/edboard

Here's a link to Pascali's work:

https://www.researchgate.net/scienti...scali-38543535

Go ahead, spin the conspiracy.......
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd December 2022 at 06:29 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 2nd December 2022, 11:02 PM   #395
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In the questura when no-one had been formally told yet that it was Meredith Kercher, let alone cause of death?

At that point none of the friends could have suspected Knox would be charged and convicted of murder and sexual assault (= Aggravated Murder).


Stop trying to downplay Knox' thoroughly outrageous behaviour.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In the questura when no-one had been formally told yet that it was Meredith Kercher, let alone cause of death?

At that point none of the friends could have suspected Knox would be charged and convicted of murder and sexual assault (= Aggravated Murder).


Stop trying to downplay Knox' thoroughly outrageous behaviour.
I see you added "formally" told about Kercher. Could that possibly be to get around the fact that they had figured it out already?
As I said before:
Do you expect us to believe they hadn't figured out it was Meredith or would the police have called Sophie and taken them to the questura with Amanda then arriving because a stranger named Meredith had been killed? Pull the other one.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 11:16 PM   #396
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He appointed the bent Vecchiotti and Conti, did he not, resurrected from the grave by Marasca-Bruno despite being firmly buried by Nencini?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The DNA evidence did not fall apart. That was a lie by Vecchiotti, Hellmann and Marasca-Bruno.
It's amazing how many judges, even SC judges, and forensic experts in Italy are bent and liars. What's even more amazing is that the only honest ones are those who just happen to agree with you.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2022, 12:12 AM   #397
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is the court that weighs up the evidence and establishes the facts of the case.



That is the important court if you want to make sure your evidence is heard.
Is that why so many merit court verdicts are annulled on appeal?


According to Notebooks of Legal Research of Legal Advice
The appeals in Italy: Why did the reforms not work?
by Bruna Szego , (pg 21)
nearly 47% of first instance courts in Italy are overturned on merit grounds:

Quote:
"The blue line therefore expresses the percentage with which the
appeal judge has reformed the judgment of 1 Instance only in cases where the appeal proceedings were concluded with a judgment on the merits of the action (rejection or acceptance). The rate of reversal thus may therefore be an indicator of the quality of the judgments delivered by the judges of 1st grade.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2022, 12:49 AM   #398
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
LondonJohn, do you have any example of a real case in Italy where there was an acquittal under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1?

If a criminal case were prosecuted and innocence of an accused was so obvious and manifest that it constituted "factual innocence" without a need to review any evidence (I am not really sure what you mean by this - accused persons acquitted under CPP Article 530.2 are "factually innocent" if the "rubric" is "the act did not occur" or "the accused did not commit the act"), then the case should be dismissed under CPP Article 529, probably during a preliminary hearing or by the first-instance court.

IIUC, an accused might be acquitted under CPP Art. 530 para. 1 (or para. 3) even if they had committed an act of homicide, but it was justifiable as self-defense. Is such an accused "factually innocent"?

I believe that someone could be acquitted under CPP Art. 530 para. 1 only if there was no evidence presented against that person. I believe that in the post-1988 reform of the Italian CPP, CPP Art. 530 para. 1 remains merely the placeholder of the rubrics that explain the rationale for acquittals. One should also read CPP Art. 530 para. 3 to see that the "absolute" cause of one justification for acquittal is combined in the paragraph with the "BARD" or "reasonable doubt" reason for acquittal. The purpose of CPP Art. 530 para. 1 is to state in law: "il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo."



Translation (Google): The impossibility of arriving at an ascertainment of guilt leads to the pronouncement of a formula which corresponds to a positive ascertainment of innocence: this derives from the need to announce the cause of the acquittal in the operative part, as foreseen in paragraph 1.

Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...-i/art530.html
Questions that are somewhat difficult to answer include how many acquittals are there in Italy per year, and for those obsessed with thinking that an acquittal under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1 is normal while one under Article 530 paragraph 2 is abnormal or bent, how many of each of those occur per year.

I have found an answer to the first question in an article from a responsible Italian media source, but have no data on the second question.

According to a 25 October 2020 article in Il Messaggero, over the period 1991 - 2019, there were 28,893 cases of judicial error in Italy. These are the totals of unjust detentions (accused persons had their cases dismissed, typically by acquittal) and acquittals after a revision hearing. That is an average (mean) of about 1000 per year.

The compensation cost to Italy for these cases totaled 823,691,326 EUR or an average of about 28,400,000 EUR per year.

One thought from this information is that, since the Ministry of Finance and the prosecutor are parties to a compensation hearing, to reduce yearly costs, the Italian compensation judge may go to some length of creative if unfair legalism to find an applicant not eligible for compensation. I suggest that may be the real reason, or one of the reasons, that Sollecito was denied compensation for unjust detention.

Source: https://www.ilmessaggero.it/italia/g...tml?refresh_ce
Numbers 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 3rd December 2022, 01:26 AM   #399
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Is there any reason you omitted to mention Amy wanted to hit Knox,

Exactly where did Amy Frost allegedly say she wanted to hit Amanda? Quote and cite, please.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
a normal home counties young woman moved to want to exact violence on someone she barely knew, such was the severely provocative nature of Knox' bullying, a continuation IMV of Knox' bullying of Mez earlier, and still on an adrenaline high after the 'extreme sensations' and being up all night coving their tracks. My theory is that Knox saw Mez' friends as an extension of Mez, hence the contemptuous and disrespectful behaviour towards them at the Questura, her way of saying she had put the priggish stuck up English girl in her place for having constantly snubbed and excluded her from her English clique, making Knox spend Halloween alone, whilst Sollecito studied for his exams, pounding the street in tears looking for a friend and then going off next day to have a pizza and video with the girls, complaining about her battery operated dildo in the bathroom and failing to flush the loo, stealing the handsome Italian skier downstairs and then, the last straw of all, stealing her job at Le Chic (she believed). Yes, a horrid bully and a thoroughly nasty character.
For a minute there, I thought I'd accidentally opened an article in The Sun.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2022, 01:43 AM   #400
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There are slides of the cuts on Guede's hand available. They are quite superficial compared to some of the knife cuts you can see on Google of victims who tried to defend themselves by grabbing the blade.


The merits trial did cover all angles from all sides.
So what's you point?

Guede's cuts had been healing for almost 3 weeks (Nov 1- arrested in Germany Nov 20). Are the photos of these "knife cuts we can see on Google of victims who tried to defend themselves by grabbing the blade" taken 3 weeks later?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

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 12:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.