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 26th November 2022, 11:47 PM   #81
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
There's no doubt that the pair were definitely suspects before Nov. 5. Anyone who claims otherwise is only fooling themselves. Do I think the police thought they were innocent and set them up to take the fall? No. But the police certainly thought they had the case figured out and only needed to get the pair to "crumble" in order to arrest them. The police chief said as much on the questura steps the next day.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 03:01 AM   #82
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp. If one did not commit the act, there would also be insufficient evidence existing that they had committed that act!

Remove the 'oxy' and you discover the nature of the claim.



It would be helpful if you would quote Italian law, case-law or otherwise. That you don't renders this as your own, somewhat suspect opinion. 'Insufficient evidence' means that the pair should never have been convicted...... but what do I know? I'm about as competent in Italian law as you!

No one - not even Stefano Maffei - no one in Italy argues using that as a pillar. Not even Mignini.

Then again, look at what you're arguing. Your concession that, "we don't know one way or the other if they committed the act or not", cannot be replaced by your own ironclad certainty that they did.

Nice try.
Further to my earlier message re Professor Anna Bull expert in Italian history, who confirms that 230.2 insufficient evidence is similar to 'Not Proven' in Scottish law (soon to be repealed as it confuses juries into thinking it might be retried later when there is 'sufficient' evidence):

Quote:
Although historically it may be a similar verdict to not guilty, in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but The Crown has not provided sufficient evidence.
wiki


Marasca-Bruno probably thought they were compromising after six months of lack of agreement.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 03:06 AM   #83
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I still don’t know whether it’s bias or ignorance on your part, or maybe a bit of both.

It’s been explained to you literally dozens of times now that those words do not mean what you think (or want) them to mean.

You demonstrate a fundamental inability to grasp the most central - and the most simple - concept in criminal law: that there must be proof of guilt BARD in order to convict, and that if the evidence does not meet that burden, the court must convict and the accused must retain the presumption of innocence.

No matter how much you try to spin/twist things with your misinterpretation and misunderstanding, you’re not fooling anyone who actually understands this concept. If there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt BARD, the court has to assume innocence and acquit. And incidentally (and you’ve been told this countless times too), “insufficient evidence” in this context means literally anywhere on the scale from “only just falling short of meeting the BARD test”, all the way down to “a million miles away from meeting the BARD test”.

If it might aid your comprehension, perhaps consider this example: suppose that the minimum height requirement for a person to join the London Metropolitan Police is 175cm. Now suppose that a person has failed the height test because they are of “insufficient height”. That ruling would be made if the person was 174.95cm tall. And that exact same ruling would also be made if the person was 96cm tall. Maybe that’ll help you understand. At this point though, I suspect it’ll have as much chance of enlightenment as if, say, one was trying to explain once again to a Moon-landing-hoax CTer that flags can appear to flutter even in the total absence of gaseous atmosphere…….
Height is an absolute measurement. BARD is subject to interpretation of law, which is why a jury often needs a judge to lecture them as to what the law says before they make their deliberations. Thus there are cases in which a jury may find guilt wherein the same case might be 'not guilty' on another day with another jury. So a very poor analogy.

Please explain why you keep referring to the Moon-landing Hoax CT, as I have never mentioned it nor have I contributed to a debate in same. Are you trying to scurrilously link my name to a conspiracy theory I have hardly ever even thought about? Kindly respond or cease and desist.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 03:09 AM   #84
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No, it proves that Napoleoni was and is a nasty, corrupt, lying, manipulative, bullying PoS who should never have even been in a police force, let alone in a position of authority and seniority. Having trouble grasping this one too, eh?
Surely a person specification for the job...? <g d r>
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 03:15 AM   #85
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It was Napoleoni's FIRST case as lead detective. Even in Follain's police-friendly account, the subtext of what he writes is that Napoleoni became unduly myopic about Sollecito's pleading, at Knox's urging, that someone check the pooh in the other toilet.

For some reason that annoyed Napoleoni. Given that her anxiety level on her first case must have been sky high - being a woman, probably hyper-conscious of the testosterone of the other cops watching her.

So she myopicly focused in on Raffaele, and his demand that they look at the pooh. That was Follain's account. Because RS's girlfriend, a resident of the flat and friend of the victim, kept on with him about it.

It went downhill from there. To the point where 15 years later, anonymous forum posters have trouble with the term 'insufficient evidence'.

Raffaele's insistence about the pooh, was simply insufficient as evidence - at least as it could be used against him! Or against Knox, as Napoleoni zero'ed in on. It's actually beside the point if that insistence leaves us none the wiser as to his alleged participation in the crime.

'Insufficient' with regards to the pooh, means that it is crap evidence.
If Napoleoni was a typical right-wing working class origin police person with racist views (as PC Plod tends to be) then how come she took against fellow Italian Sollecito? What on earth would be her motive to pick on him or to even assume he was involved. (No doubt follows CT about Mignini.)

Here's a radical suggestion: perhaps Sollecito came under suspicion because he behaved extremely suspiciously...?
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 03:18 AM   #86
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
So your view is that the supreme court were so unthinking that they just blurted out that the pair did not commit the act without thinking about why they were saying those particular words.

Have you ever considered the possibility you could be mistaken?
Thing is, the motivational report was suddenly and mysteriously delayed for three months, so I believe that, yes, there was a conflict going on in the background.

The motivational report is a head-scratching mish-mash and as you saw with Sollecito's later compensation hearing, resolved nothing much as far as the facts found by the courts go.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 03:26 AM   #87
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Sometimes...as with Napoleoni and the police/Mignini for breaking the law that suspects must have a lawyer present during questioning. And Varriale, the cop in Rome who lied about his partner and him having their guns on them as required when the partner, Cerciello-Rega, was killed. And his immediate superior, Sandro Ottaviani, who covered up that lie for him. Varriale was also caught lying on the witness stand:
"Elder’s lawyer Renato Borzone told the court yesterday his team had discovered an audio message on Varriale’s mobile phone in which a colleague from his precinct told him to keep quiet about an allegedly falsified police report.

“Andrea, you mustn’t speak to anyone about this report. (Sandro) Ottaviani (the precinct’s chief at the time) knows all about it. Come and see me and we’ll fill it in together. Don’t speak a word,” the colleague said in the audio, heard by AFP. "


Then there's this report from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture:

.[/hilite]

Italy is pretty good about prosecuting this kind of ilegal and abusive behavior by police and prison staff but it does seem there is plenty to prosecute. One has to wonder how many are not caught or prosecuted? There is no doubt in my mind that Knox's and Sollecito's descriptions of their interrogations are true and that the police lied to cover it up and protect themselves from prosecution. Why else not record them or allow lawyers to be present?




Napoleoni was not convicted of accessing the records "in order to find dirt on her husband in an acrimonious divorce (civil case)". She was convicted of accessing the records to illegally initiate investigations of a court psychologist who had recommended Napoleoni's ex-husband be given custody of their son. One has to wonder what it takes for a psychologist to advise a father, instead of a mother, be given custody of a young child?

People in an acrimonious divorce do behave disgracefully and yes, Napoleoni abuse her office by trawling the police records. She must have known she'd be caught surely, as a close relative of mine works for the Home Office and has access to the police records. However, China Walls are inbuilt and anyone using the system to look up anybody else would have every single keystroke logged and reported. All I can think is that Napoleoni must have been emotionally and mentally unsound when she did it.

Your problem is that you keep claiming that the Italians should have followed American protocol but in Europe, 'record' does not mean 'video transcript' it can mean a straight forward tape recorder, which was the usual method until very recently.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 03:30 AM   #88
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Of course, there are laws and then there are practices.

Here's an article about a US case where allegedly a police officer violated laws, including by "setting up" one or more persons under false allegations of crime, including murder, for that officer's own reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-cop-golubski/

For the Knox - Sollecito case, it seems clear that the 5/6 interrogations were planned to allow for potential violations of defense rights. Gx iobbi, in his testimony before the Massei court, stated that the police intended to bring Knox and Sollecito in for special questioning and that he (and other police?) suspected them prior to the 5/6 November interrogations. Of course, Sollecito was the one called in for questioning and Knox happened to accompany him on her own volition. But if Sollecito was already a suspect, he should have been told he was a suspect, received the warnings listed in CPP Article 64, and been told that he was entitled to bring a lawyer to the questioning. Since none of the provisions of CPP Article 64 were met by the authorities, CPP Article 63 applied, and Sollecito's statements could not be lawfully used against him. But this conduct by the authorities, as well as their conduct during Knox's interrogation without a lawyer, shows that the police were "setting up" Knox and Sollecito. Whether or not the police suspected them (or "knew that they were guilty"*) is irrelevant to the concept of their being set up or framed. Under Italian law, the person who is a suspect or an accused is to be assumed innocent (not guilty), which implies that they are provided the defense rights provided under that law (CPP Articles 60 and 61; Italian Constitution, Articles 24 and 27).

* The police and/or prosecutor cannot under Italian law "know" someone is guilty of a crime if that person has not been finally convicted, according to the Italian Constitution, Article 27. One could argue that the police or prosecutor who witnessed a person committing a crime would "know" that person had committed the crime, but otherwise, the police or prosecutor only suspect or infer that the person has committed a crime.
Then it is a great pity that neither of Knox' or Sollecito's ultra-multimillion euro attorneys ever took the trouble to lodge a formal complaint, which would have taken them less than an hour to set out, and as per Italian Bar Standard Rules.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 03:32 AM   #89
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There's no doubt that the pair were definitely suspects before Nov. 5. Anyone who claims otherwise is only fooling themselves. Do I think the police thought they were innocent and set them up to take the fall? No. But the police certainly thought they had the case figured out and only needed to get the pair to "crumble" in order to arrest them. The police chief said as much on the questura steps the next day.
If you are at the crime scene when police arrive and you lie to the police, then you are likely to become a suspect. Filomena was also strongly suspected merely by dint of also being a resident there and in a nearby vicinity as of the time of the crime.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 04:13 AM   #90
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Could be, but in PQ's case...I'd go with mental illness. Extreme narcissism with the inability to ever admit being wrong seems to run pretty strongly through the PQ troops.
What has that got to do with this thread? Is 'narcissist' the latest trendy 'hate' label? When reasoned debate fails, the helpless can always find a choice profanity, mental illness of the day or other ad hominem as a form of attack.

If it makes you feel better.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 05:08 AM   #91
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
Further to my earlier message re Professor Anna Bull expert in Italian history, who confirms that 230.2 insufficient evidence is similar to 'Not Proven' in Scottish law ...
Ah. Perhaps this explains your belief that the supreme court's judgement was an oxymoron. You regard the insufficient evidence verdict as being the same as not proven. i.e. "We reckon you did it but the prosecution didn't sufficiently prove it for a conviction".

Thus you read "Insufficient evidence. The accused did not commit the act." and you imagine a "therefore" between the two parts, which makes it self-contradictory. Take a moment to consider putting an "and" between the two instead. Now the second part is doing the job of distancing their insufficient evidence verdict from your misinterpretation of "we reckon they did it". Thus the oxymoron evaporates and the judgement is clarified.

Happy to help.
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 27th November 2022, 05:11 AM   #92
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
Thing is, the motivational report was suddenly and mysteriously delayed for three months, so I believe that, yes, there was a conflict going on in the background.



The motivational report is a head-scratching mish-mash and as you saw with Sollecito's later compensation hearing, resolved nothing much as far as the facts found by the courts go.
Not quite sure but was that a yes to your thinking the supreme court was stupid and a no to your having ever considered you may be mistaken?
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 27th November 2022, 05:31 AM   #93
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Ah. Perhaps this explains your belief that the supreme court's judgement was an oxymoron. You regard the insufficient evidence verdict as being the same as not proven. i.e. "We reckon you did it but the prosecution didn't sufficiently prove it for a conviction".

Thus you read "Insufficient evidence. The accused did not commit the act." and you imagine a "therefore" between the two parts, which makes it self-contradictory. Take a moment to consider putting an "and" between the two instead. Now the second part is doing the job of distancing their insufficient evidence verdict from your misinterpretation of "we reckon they did it". Thus the oxymoron evaporates and the judgement is clarified.

Happy to help.
I am not sure you are getting it. In the UK/USA one just gets a 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' verdict (or 'case dismissed').

In Italy all court cases have to have written reasons (a motivational report) written up by the [usually] junior judge in the case and signed off by the senior one, as they have a tribunal set-up.

For the sake of example, let's say we have an imaginary case in which the verdict is 'Not Guilty 230.2 due to insufficient evidence, did not commit the act'. So far so good. Yet the written reasons state, 'Mr. X. was at the scene with a knife in his hand with his DNA on the handle and the victim's on the blade. Mr X. did wash the victim's blood from his hands. He did try to cover up for his co-defendant, who was found guilty of murder but not of applying the fatal wound.'

Do you now see the dichotomy?
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 05:34 AM   #94
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Not quite sure but was that a yes to your thinking the supreme court was stupid and a no to your having ever considered you may be mistaken?
I did not say they were stupid. They were persuaded to use the 'rich man's get-out clause' even though they knew perfectly well that the 'not proven' verdict was frowned on and rarely used (but seems to have been left there so that influential politicians have a loophole).

I dare say OJ Simpson would also have got a similar verdict.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 07:17 AM   #95
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Height is an absolute measurement. BARD is subject to interpretation of law, which is why a jury often needs a judge to lecture them as to what the law says before they make their deliberations. Thus there are cases in which a jury may find guilt wherein the same case might be 'not guilty' on another day with another jury. So a very poor analogy.

Please explain why you keep referring to the Moon-landing Hoax CT, as I have never mentioned it nor have I contributed to a debate in same. Are you trying to scurrilously link my name to a conspiracy theory I have hardly ever even thought about? Kindly respond or cease and desist.

Wrong on all counts.

But if you want to keep trying to split hairs and move goalposts, I’ll give you another example - this the judgement-based rather than empirical - and see if you can successfully apply it to the matter at hand:

Suppose that a mandatory criterion for a job applicant getting the job in sales is that they have a sufficiently high rapport and communications skills. This criterion is assessed by the 3-person interview panel.

Simon comes for an interview. The day afterwards, he’s informed that he will not be getting the job because, in the view of the interview panel, he has insufficient rapport/communication skills.

Now…… Simon might have failed this test by a whisker (perhaps after a lengthy debate among the interview panel members, after which they concluded that he just fell short of making the grade).

Or…….Simon might have displayed shockingly poor rapport and communication skills in the interview. As soon as he left the interview room, the three panel members might immediately have agreed that he fell massively short of their requirements.

In both of the above scenarios, Simon would - correctly and accurately - be said to have failed the interview on the grounds of “insufficient rapport/communications skills”.

Hope that will assist with your understanding re “insufficient evidence”.


And as a postscript: please do try to read my posts for comprehension. I have neither stated nor implied your belief in any conspiracy theory (other than the one wrt the Kercher case). I was using a simile: a comparator.

If, for example, I’d made an observation that the actions of a man who was staggering around after walking into a door were just like those of a raging drunk who’s just been thrown out of the pub…. would you think I was actually accusing the man of being drunk (or even of ever having been drunk before in his life)?

I suggest you may want to my post again. More slowly and carefully this time.

(Interestingly though, there’s a famous example from history where Vixen’s illogic actually did play out: at some point in late C19 or early C20 (and I have a feeling it predates WWI, but I might be wrong), a journalist or politician had stated that the rapid merciless sweeping advancements of German military forces across a certain piece of territory was reminiscent of the all-conquering days of the marauding Hun. At some point, 2+2 became 5 and Germans - notably the German military - started actually being called “The Hun”.)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 07:23 AM   #96
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
People in an acrimonious divorce do behave disgracefully and yes, Napoleoni abuse her office by trawling the police records. She must have known she'd be caught surely, as a close relative of mine works for the Home Office and has access to the police records. However, China Walls are inbuilt and anyone using the system to look up anybody else would have every single keystroke logged and reported. All I can think is that Napoleoni must have been emotionally and mentally unsound when she did it.

Your problem is that you keep claiming that the Italians should have followed American protocol but in Europe, 'record' does not mean 'video transcript' it can mean a straight forward tape recorder, which was the usual method until very recently.

Good job then that they electronically audio-recorded Knox’s and Sollecito’s interrogations on 5th/6th November. In the regional police HQ. In a room equipped with functioning audio recording equipment.

Oh, wait…

(Wasn’t there some astonishing misdirection being put forward later on about budgetary constraints being a feasible reason why no audio cassettes were used….?)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 07:24 AM   #97
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
I am not sure you are getting it. In the UK/USA one just gets a 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' verdict (or 'case dismissed').

In Italy all court cases have to have written reasons (a motivational report) written up by the [usually] junior judge in the case and signed off by the senior one, as they have a tribunal set-up.

For the sake of example, let's say we have an imaginary case in which the verdict is 'Not Guilty 230.2 due to insufficient evidence, did not commit the act'. So far so good. Yet the written reasons state, 'Mr. X. was at the scene with a knife in his hand with his DNA on the handle and the victim's on the blade. Mr X. did wash the victim's blood from his hands. He did try to cover up for his co-defendant, who was found guilty of murder but not of applying the fatal wound.'

Do you now see the dichotomy?
No, I don't see the dichotomy. I do see you making up an imaginary example of a person who was an accessory to a murder, unlike the two defendants.
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 27th November 2022, 07:41 AM   #98
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
No, I don't see the dichotomy. I do see you making up an imaginary example of a person who was an accessory to a murder, unlike the two defendants.

And Vixen’s already had it explained to her - patiently and at length, and several times now - that the Marasca SC panel was faced with an issue wrt Knox’s criminal slander* conviction, whose verdict and MR had by then been finalised and signed off by the SC.

The Marasca court had two options: 1) include in its verdict elements which contradicted some or all of the criminal slander verdict; or 2) find some way to make its verdict align with the criminal slander verdict.

Had Marasca taken the former option, the contradictions would have necessitated a re-opening of the criminal slander conviction, and very probably a revision trial of some sort. By taking the latter option, Marasca ensured that the criminal slander conviction could simply be left as-is. And this - and ONLY this - is why many of the judicial facts from Knox’s criminal slander conviction found themselves within the Marasca judgement on the murder charges.

Of course, it wasn’t too long after the Marasca verdict/MR that the ECHR shredded the Knox criminal slander conviction in any case. Any rational, intelligent and objective observer can put the pieces of this small jigsaw puzzle together very easily.


* And yes, I realise there’s a more strictly accurate way to translate the Italian crime of calunnia, but “criminal slander” is, to me, an acceptable & sufficiently-accurate shorthand.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 07:50 AM   #99
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I did not say they were stupid. They were persuaded to use the 'rich man's get-out clause' even though they knew perfectly well that the 'not proven' verdict was frowned on and rarely used (but seems to have been left there so that influential politicians have a loophole).

I dare say OJ Simpson would also have got a similar verdict.

We’re all still waiting patiently for you to supply us with (reliable) evidence that 530.2 is the “rich man’s get-out clause”.

Any chance of that happening, Vixen? Note that the simple supplying of evidence of two rich men being acquitted in this way is NOT evidence to support your claim. What you’ll need to supply is

1) How many total acquittals there were in Italy over a given period (say, 2005-2015);

2) Of these, how many were under 530.1 and how many were under 530.2;

3) Of those that were under 530.2, how many could reasonably be described as examples of a “rich man’s get-out clause”.

Only then will you be able to support your claim in any sort of credible manner.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 09:23 AM   #100
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If Napoleoni was a typical right-wing working class origin police person with racist views (as PC Plod tends to be) then how come she took against fellow Italian Sollecito? What on earth would be her motive to pick on him or to even assume he was involved. (No doubt follows CT about Mignini.)

Here's a radical suggestion: perhaps Sollecito came under suspicion because he behaved extremely suspiciously...?
You'll be surprised to read that I agree with you. That Sollecito and Knox were SUSPECTS from the start. To the point where the cops organized an all-night interrogation to coerce confessions from them before Knox's mother could arrive.

The issue? The events which provoked suspicion. Can those individual suspicious events be inventoried?

John Follain's book is perhaps the best at outlining what the cops were thinking, because he seemed to have access to their very thoughts - Mignini's very thoughts. The first 1/3 of Follain's book is 'the cops were right to suspect the pair,' and the second part he shifts to how the case against them fell apart at trial.

What were those suspicions? Please note, none of these are indicators of actual suspicion - that they were in investigators' minds is all one really needs to read, to know why Marasca-Bruno had called the original investigation 'amnesiac' and riddled with failures.

As above, the first "suspicious" act was Raffaele bugging Napoleoni about the pooh in Laura's toilet. The second was Raffaele and Knox comforting each other with soft kisses outside the cottage, then later canoodling at the Questura. While perhaps inappropriate - save for the fact that Knox was barely out of her teenage years - none of that is a marker for murder. Knox also bought underwear, her own was then behind crimescene tape.

Knox was taken back to the cottage and when she put on the anti-contamination booties, she swiveled her hips and said 'oop-la', or 'ta-da'. Inside she freaked out when they asked her to help in inventorying the kitchen knives, none of which were missing. All of that was cited as the psychological observations police made to declare them guilty, even before the forensics came in!

Tellingly, hours and hours of phone taps of their phones revealed nothing suspicious. At the Questura on Nov 5 while waiting for Raffaele, she did yoga, which the tabloid press sluttified as cartwheels.

There. It's one thing to say, "Here's a radical suggestion: perhaps Sollecito came under suspicion because he behaved extremely suspiciously...?"

It's quite another to inventory those actual behaviours. None of which pointed towards their participation in a murder - one of which (the phone taps) should have pointed the cops away from suspicions.

But it's good to read from you, one of the few remaining guilters, that the cops actually did bring Raffaele into the Questura late on Nov 5 with him as a full-on suspect. With a rotating team of police ready to go at both of them all night if necessary.

With the recording equipment turned off.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 27th November 2022 at 09:25 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 10:29 AM   #101
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Then it is a great pity that neither of Knox' or Sollecito's ultra-multimillion euro attorneys ever took the trouble to lodge a formal complaint, which would have taken them less than an hour to set out, and as per Italian Bar Standard Rules.

1. Knox's lawyers and Knox made numerous complaints to the Italian authorities; those authorities ignored all of those complaints, except that Knox was criminally charged with calunnia (malicious accusation) against the police and Mignini. This was found by the ECHR in the final judgment Knox v. Italy, and is a matter that is final under international law. It is accepted by the Italian government, according to their preliminary communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This has been explained to you in the earlier continuations of this thread.

That Knox's statements could not be lawfully used against her for the murder/rape charges (although permitted against international law for the calunnia against Lumumba charge) was an early CSC decision also brought about by the complaints of Knox's lawyers.

Sources:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

2. Sollectio's lawyers also complained, as shown by the early CSC decision that his rights had been violated during the interrogation and therefore that his interrogation statements could not be used against him. This CSC decision apparently was violated by the Italian compensation court, and is one of the subjects of the ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy 1157/18, as Communicated to Italy by the ECHR 1 February 2022.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997

3. Please provide a citation for your claim about the Italian Bar Standards. There is indeed an Italian legal document, issued by the Ministry of Justice, which governs the lawyers of Italy under the National Bar Council of Italy, entitled Code of Conduct for Italian Lawyers. It covers all lawyers in any kind of case, including criminal cases. The first article in its first paragraph states "the lawyer protects, in any courts, the right to liberty, as well as inviolability and effectiveness of the right to representation, and he ensures that trials and hearings conform to proper procedures." There is no provision in that document that supports your claim about complaints, only that the lawyer must present any complaint in court, which is what the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito did. According to the document, lawyers who do not fulfill their duties are subject to discipline; there is no evidence that the lawyers for Knox or Sollecito were subjected to any discipline for actions or lack of actions in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Source: https://www.italianbusinesslawyers.c...an_Lawyers.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 27th November 2022 at 10:34 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 10:59 AM   #102
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Wrong on all counts.

But if you want to keep trying to split hairs and move goalposts, I’ll give you another example - this the judgement-based rather than empirical - and see if you can successfully apply it to the matter at hand:

Suppose that a mandatory criterion for a job applicant getting the job in sales is that they have a sufficiently high rapport and communications skills. This criterion is assessed by the 3-person interview panel.

Simon comes for an interview. The day afterwards, he’s informed that he will not be getting the job because, in the view of the interview panel, he has insufficient rapport/communication skills.

Now…… Simon might have failed this test by a whisker (perhaps after a lengthy debate among the interview panel members, after which they concluded that he just fell short of making the grade).

Or…….Simon might have displayed shockingly poor rapport and communication skills in the interview. As soon as he left the interview room, the three panel members might immediately have agreed that he fell massively short of their requirements.

In both of the above scenarios, Simon would - correctly and accurately - be said to have failed the interview on the grounds of “insufficient rapport/communications skills”.

Hope that will assist with your understanding re “insufficient evidence”.


And as a postscript: please do try to read my posts for comprehension. I have neither stated nor implied your belief in any conspiracy theory (other than the one wrt the Kercher case). I was using a simile: a comparator.

If, for example, I’d made an observation that the actions of a man who was staggering around after walking into a door were just like those of a raging drunk who’s just been thrown out of the pub…. would you think I was actually accusing the man of being drunk (or even of ever having been drunk before in his life)?

I suggest you may want to my post again. More slowly and carefully this time.

(Interestingly though, there’s a famous example from history where Vixen’s illogic actually did play out: at some point in late C19 or early C20 (and I have a feeling it predates WWI, but I might be wrong), a journalist or politician had stated that the rapid merciless sweeping advancements of German military forces across a certain piece of territory was reminiscent of the all-conquering days of the marauding Hun. At some point, 2+2 became 5 and Germans - notably the German military - started actually being called “The Hun”.)
What? That was correct:

Quote:
In the mid-19th century, the Hun was resurrected as an Asiatic foe at the same time the British empire came to view China as a direct threat. And then, in the early months of World War I, the allies applied the term ‘Hun’ to the forces of Germany and Austro-Hungary in order to conjure up images of a bestial foe.
History Extra

Again, your analogy is not apt. A job interview is notoriously poor at assessing the best candidate. This is because people choose others in their own image (right clothes, right accent, right school). This is why criminal courts are set up so that each party has the fair opportunity to put their case. It is the best we have.

As you know, the rich play the system or they get more favourable treatment because of 'unconscious bias' or because they know the 'right people'. For example, Conservative politician Jeffrey Archer impressing the judge with his 'fragrant' wife.

Thus a court is as fair as it can be, especially for very serious crime involving young adults. Had there really have been 'insufficient evidence' or no 'probable cause' or 'no prospect of success', do you really think it would have a whole six months, with both the merits court and the appeal court rubber-stamping a 'Guilty' verdict.

So 'insufficient evidence' for a case that has been proven twice over does not cut the mustard as 'substantially insufficient' and must ipso facto be paper thin and simply the Supreme Court opting out of its duty to come to a verdict and instead abnegating its responsibility like a latter day Pontius Pilate, cringing and cowardly and only making things worse.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 11:04 AM   #103
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Good job then that they electronically audio-recorded Knox’s and Sollecito’s interrogations on 5th/6th November. In the regional police HQ. In a room equipped with functioning audio recording equipment.

Oh, wait…

(Wasn’t there some astonishing misdirection being put forward later on about budgetary constraints being a feasible reason why no audio cassettes were used….?)
A simple stenographer taking down notes per paper and pen and then reading it back to the witness before their signing it has worked well all the way down the centuries. This is what is meant by the term 'recorded'.

It is a typical PIP lie to say the interviews were not recorded.

Watching too much Steven Avery Netflix apologists.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 11:16 AM   #104
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And Vixen’s already had it explained to her - patiently and at length, and several times now - that the Marasca SC panel was faced with an issue wrt Knox’s criminal slander* conviction, whose verdict and MR had by then been finalised and signed off by the SC.

The Marasca court had two options: 1) include in its verdict elements which contradicted some or all of the criminal slander verdict; or 2) find some way to make its verdict align with the criminal slander verdict.

Had Marasca taken the former option, the contradictions would have necessitated a re-opening of the criminal slander conviction, and very probably a revision trial of some sort. By taking the latter option, Marasca ensured that the criminal slander conviction could simply be left as-is. And this - and ONLY this - is why many of the judicial facts from Knox’s criminal slander conviction found themselves within the Marasca judgement on the murder charges.

Of course, it wasn’t too long after the Marasca verdict/MR that the ECHR shredded the Knox criminal slander conviction in any case. Any rational, intelligent and objective observer can put the pieces of this small jigsaw puzzle together very easily.


* And yes, I realise there’s a more strictly accurate way to translate the Italian crime of calunnia, but “criminal slander” is, to me, an acceptable & sufficiently-accurate shorthand.
No, 'criminal slander' is a French law oft used to great financial advantage by Victoria Beckham whenever anyone disses her boutiques in Paris. It refers to a libel or slander that results in financial damage to your livelihood or business. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with slander or libel proper. Your confusion comes from translating Calunnia into calumny.

Calunnia is most closely equivalent to the US federal felony of 'Obstruction of Justice' (impeding a criminal investigation) or the UK 'Perverting the Course of Justice'. It is not a civil offence, it is classed as a serious crime, with sentencing guidelines recommending between three to six years, Italy, USA and UK. Don't try to downplay it as a minor misdemeanour.

Do you not see the paradox contained within your own message? Evidently not. If Knox is guilty of Criminal Calunnia and the written reasons state that this is because she appeared to have named Lumumba to cover up for Guede as she reasoned that someone might have seen a Black guy leaving the scene of the murder. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE if at the same time the pair 'had nothing to do with the murder'??? LondonJohn????!!!!


Under UK contract law any legal clause that contradicts itself repudiates the entire document.

So, on the one hand we have Knox covering up for Guede, who was there, was covered in blood, was convicted of Aggravated Murder, did sexually assault the victim (hence, 'Aggravated') but was cleared of being the killer and he did act with others and on the other hand we have Knox and Sollecito 'did not commit the act' due to insufficient evidence.

How so?

I will adopt my listening pose.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 27th November 2022 at 11:35 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 11:20 AM   #105
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
We’re all still waiting patiently for you to supply us with (reliable) evidence that 530.2 is the “rich man’s get-out clause”.

Any chance of that happening, Vixen? Note that the simple supplying of evidence of two rich men being acquitted in this way is NOT evidence to support your claim. What you’ll need to supply is

1) How many total acquittals there were in Italy over a given period (say, 2005-2015);

2) Of these, how many were under 530.1 and how many were under 530.2;

3) Of those that were under 530.2, how many could reasonably be described as examples of a “rich man’s get-out clause”.

Only then will you be able to support your claim in any sort of credible manner.
This was already discussed in 2016. In any case, apart from procedure, Italy's criminal law system is quite similar to the UK's. If you get a guilty verdict at trial and then succeed in getting an appeal on points of law and are still found guilty, you do not suddenly get out of jail with 'insufficient evidence'.

I can guarantee without looking that virtually all of the cases annulled without deferment was where the defendant had been found not guilty at either the merits trial or the appeal court or both. And it would have been the prosecutor doing the appealing as a defendant would not appeal a 'not guilty' verdict.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 27th November 2022 at 11:37 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 11:29 AM   #106
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You'll be surprised to read that I agree with you. That Sollecito and Knox were SUSPECTS from the start. To the point where the cops organized an all-night interrogation to coerce confessions from them before Knox's mother could arrive.

The issue? The events which provoked suspicion. Can those individual suspicious events be inventoried?

John Follain's book is perhaps the best at outlining what the cops were thinking, because he seemed to have access to their very thoughts - Mignini's very thoughts. The first 1/3 of Follain's book is 'the cops were right to suspect the pair,' and the second part he shifts to how the case against them fell apart at trial.

What were those suspicions? Please note, none of these are indicators of actual suspicion - that they were in investigators' minds is all one really needs to read, to know why Marasca-Bruno had called the original investigation 'amnesiac' and riddled with failures.

As above, the first "suspicious" act was Raffaele bugging Napoleoni about the pooh in Laura's toilet. The second was Raffaele and Knox comforting each other with soft kisses outside the cottage, then later canoodling at the Questura. While perhaps inappropriate - save for the fact that Knox was barely out of her teenage years - none of that is a marker for murder. Knox also bought underwear, her own was then behind crimescene tape.

Knox was taken back to the cottage and when she put on the anti-contamination booties, she swiveled her hips and said 'oop-la', or 'ta-da'. Inside she freaked out when they asked her to help in inventorying the kitchen knives, none of which were missing. All of that was cited as the psychological observations police made to declare them guilty, even before the forensics came in!

Tellingly, hours and hours of phone taps of their phones revealed nothing suspicious. At the Questura on Nov 5 while waiting for Raffaele, she did yoga, which the tabloid press sluttified as cartwheels.

There. It's one thing to say, "Here's a radical suggestion: perhaps Sollecito came under suspicion because he behaved extremely suspiciously...?"

It's quite another to inventory those actual behaviours. None of which pointed towards their participation in a murder - one of which (the phone taps) should have pointed the cops away from suspicions.

But it's good to read from you, one of the few remaining guilters, that the cops actually did bring Raffaele into the Questura late on Nov 5 with him as a full-on suspect. With a rotating team of police ready to go at both of them all night if necessary.

With the recording equipment turned off.
No, you cannot downplay this as 'inappropriate'. It was cold-bloodied bullying behaviour by Knox, laughing and giggling in front of Mez' devastated friends - bullies laugh at other people's misfortune - and Sollecito was teaching Knox how to say 'I spit on your dead relative's grave' in Italian. Bragging about how Mez' throat was slit and how she had died in agony. Knox was on a Joanna Dehenney-style high, yelling that she had just made up a song about murder and that she 'could murder a pizza'. Completely off her head - the murderer's high. Essays written about rape and murder of young women.


No way was that 'just an inappropriate teenage reaction'. At best it reveals a truly nasty and unpleasant character and at worst...
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 27th November 2022 at 11:38 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 11:31 AM   #107
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. Knox's lawyers and Knox made numerous complaints to the Italian authorities; those authorities ignored all of those complaints, except that Knox was criminally charged with calunnia (malicious accusation) against the police and Mignini. This was found by the ECHR in the final judgment Knox v. Italy, and is a matter that is final under international law. It is accepted by the Italian government, according to their preliminary communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This has been explained to you in the earlier continuations of this thread.

That Knox's statements could not be lawfully used against her for the murder/rape charges (although permitted against international law for the calunnia against Lumumba charge) was an early CSC decision also brought about by the complaints of Knox's lawyers.

Sources:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

2. Sollectio's lawyers also complained, as shown by the early CSC decision that his rights had been violated during the interrogation and therefore that his interrogation statements could not be used against him. This CSC decision apparently was violated by the Italian compensation court, and is one of the subjects of the ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy 1157/18, as Communicated to Italy by the ECHR 1 February 2022.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997

3. Please provide a citation for your claim about the Italian Bar Standards. There is indeed an Italian legal document, issued by the Ministry of Justice, which governs the lawyers of Italy under the National Bar Council of Italy, entitled Code of Conduct for Italian Lawyers. It covers all lawyers in any kind of case, including criminal cases. The first article in its first paragraph states "the lawyer protects, in any courts, the right to liberty, as well as inviolability and effectiveness of the right to representation, and he ensures that trials and hearings conform to proper procedures." There is no provision in that document that supports your claim about complaints, only that the lawyer must present any complaint in court, which is what the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito did. According to the document, lawyers who do not fulfill their duties are subject to discipline; there is no evidence that the lawyers for Knox or Sollecito were subjected to any discipline for actions or lack of actions in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Source: https://www.italianbusinesslawyers.c...an_Lawyers.pdf
Please issue me a specific citation that shows Dalla Vedova, Maori or Bongiorno ever set out a formal complaint to the police. I am not eeferring to what was said in court.

The Bar Standards say a barrister has a duty to his or her client. (First duty is to the court.)
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 12:13 PM   #108
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
... Do you not see the paradox contained within your own message? Evidently not. If Knox is guilty of Criminal Calunnia and the written reasons state that this is because she appeared to have named Lumumba to cover up for Guede as she reasoned that someone might have seen a Black guy leaving the scene of the murder. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE if at the same time the pair 'had nothing to do with the murder'???
...
I will adopt my listening pose.
"She appeared to have" is not the same thing as "She did".

You are conflating the act of calunnia with the surmised motive for committing the act. She was convicted of callunia against Lumumba, not of covering up for Guede.

So your argument that she couldn't be uninvolved in the murder if she was convicted of covering up for the murderer fails because you carelessly failed to grasp that she was not convicted of covering up for the murderer, she was convicted of throwing blame on an innocent man.

Still listening, or is that just a pose?
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 27th November 2022, 12:17 PM   #109
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
bullies laugh at other people's misfortune
Ordinary people laugh inappropriately in stressful situations.
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 27th November 2022, 12:51 PM   #110
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please issue me a specific citation that shows Dalla Vedova, Maori or Bongiorno ever set out a formal complaint to the police. I am not eeferring to what was said in court.

The Bar Standards say a barrister has a duty to his or her client. (First duty is to the court.)
This in the Italian Bar document is stated in Article 10 as:

Quote:
A lawyer shall faithfully fulfil the received mandate, carrying out his activity in the interest of the assisted party and in compliance with the constitutional and social relevance of the defence.
That means if the lawyer and client believe that the best course of action is to complain to the court rather than to the police, that is what is proper.

Knox had properly complained to the police about mistreatment in her Memoriale 1, and that complaint was ignored.

There was no Italian law against torture of persons by police or prison guards at the relevant time, so Knox, Sollecito, and their lawyers waited to present futher complaints to the court, as was appropriate, legal, and in the best interests of Knox and Sollecito. Your attempts to make the proper and legal seem otherwise are laughably false.

In its case law, the ECHR is very specific that complaints are to be directed to the courts when there is a risk of retaliation by the authorities after complaints to the police. The brutality that may be displayed by Italian police was well known at the relevant time, based upon several Italian court and ECHR cases. Part of the lawyer's job in Italy is to assure, as much as possible, that the lawyer's client who has been allegedly mistreated by the authorities is not subjected to further mistreatment as a result of retaliation by those same authorities.

Last edited by Numbers; 27th November 2022 at 12:59 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 01:16 PM   #111
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
"She appeared to have" is not the same thing as "She did".

You are conflating the act of calunnia with the surmised motive for committing the act. She was convicted of callunia against Lumumba, not of covering up for Guede.

So your argument that she couldn't be uninvolved in the murder if she was convicted of covering up for the murderer fails because you carelessly failed to grasp that she was not convicted of covering up for the murderer, she was convicted of throwing blame on an innocent man.

Still listening, or is that just a pose?
Figure of speech. How would she have knowledge of Lumumba's innocence or guilt if she had nothing to do with it? Yet this is what Marasca-Bruno claim, despite setting out highly incriminating legal facts found.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 01:18 PM   #112
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please issue me a specific citation that shows Dalla Vedova, Maori or Bongiorno ever set out a formal complaint to the police. I am not eeferring to what was said in court.

The Bar Standards say a barrister has a duty to his or her client. (First duty is to the court.)
Wow. Mignini cited Knox's statements in court as a reason to have her charged with defamation, for claiming to have been slapped at interrogation.

Indeed I read somewhere that a PM, like Mignini, is required to investigate ANY wrongdoing he becomes aware of, regardless of if an aggrieved party fills out the forms....

... like none of the inquisators from that night had done.

But for someone who rarely provides citations for the most bizarre of claims, it's weird to read that you want others to cite.... just saying.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 01:20 PM   #113
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
This in the Italian Bar document is stated in Article 10 as:



That means if the lawyer and client believe that the best course of action is to complain to the court rather than to the police, that is what is proper.

Knox had properly complained to the police about mistreatment in her Memoriale 1, and that complaint was ignored.

There was no Italian law against torture of persons by police or prison guards at the relevant time, so Knox, Sollecito, and their lawyers waited to present futher complaints to the court, as was appropriate, legal, and in the best interests of Knox and Sollecito. Your attempts to make the proper and legal seem otherwise are laughably false.

In its case law, the ECHR is very specific that complaints are to be directed to the courts when there is a risk of retaliation by the authorities after complaints to the police. The brutality that may be displayed by Italian police was well known at the relevant time, based upon several Italian court and ECHR cases. Part of the lawyer's job in Italy is to assure, as much as possible, that the lawyer's client who has been allegedly mistreated by the authorities is not subjected to further mistreatment as a result of retaliation by those same authorities.
No, first stage of complaint should be the person you have a complaint against. Give them a chance to make amends.

If police behaviour led to Knox and Sollecito being unfairly arraigned to court then the complaint should have been made before the arraignment.

An official from the US Embassy visited regularly while Knox was on remand and he or she didn't mention any complaints from Knox, either. That is the function of the ambassador.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 01:22 PM   #114
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Wow. Mignini cited Knox's statements in court as a reason to have her charged with defamation, for claiming to have been slapped at interrogation.

Indeed I read somewhere that a PM, like Mignini, is required to investigate ANY wrongdoing he becomes aware of, regardless of if an aggrieved party fills out the forms....

... like none of the inquisators from that night had done.

But for someone who rarely provides citations for the most bizarre of claims, it's weird to read that you want others to cite.... just saying.
Why were Knox' parents and friends spreading false claims about police brutality and encouraging Knox to say she was hit, yet not once did any of the attorneys lodge a complaint against the police? Can't prosecute an attorney for going through the correct channels.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 01:23 PM   #115
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Figure of speech. How would she have knowledge of Lumumba's innocence or guilt if she had nothing to do with it? Yet this is what Marasca-Bruno claim, despite setting out highly incriminating legal facts found.
Of course, no one cares if the Italian courts got calunnia right or wrong, except for maybe the immediate parties to it. ECHR certainly thought Italy had got it wrong.

I'm speaking as someone who when I got involved with this, actually though Hellmann had got everything 100% right, including sustaining calunnia. On that I've changed my mind, after reading Mignini's 2010 interview with CNN where he painted himself into a corner about it.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 01:30 PM   #116
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, you cannot downplay this as 'inappropriate'. It was cold-bloodied bullying behaviour by Knox, laughing and giggling in front of Mez' devastated friends - bullies laugh at other people's misfortune - and Sollecito was teaching Knox how to say 'I spit on your dead relative's grave' in Italian. Bragging about how Mez' throat was slit and how she had died in agony. Knox was on a Joanna Dehenney-style high, yelling that she had just made up a song about murder and that she 'could murder a pizza'. Completely off her head - the murderer's high. Essays written about rape and murder of young women.


No way was that 'just an inappropriate teenage reaction'. At best it reveals a truly nasty and unpleasant character and at worst...
Vixen has a virulent hatred of Amanda and believes Amanda is guilty regardless of the facts. In view of this, Amanda will be condemned for her behaviour regardless of what she does. These are the following behaviours Vixen has no issue with :-

*Corrupt police/prosecutors violating the rights of Amanda and Raffale by denying access to lawyers and not taping their interrogations, lying to Amanda she had HIV, feeding numerous lies to the media about the washing machine running, the purchase of receipts, a missing Harry Potter book and showering in a bloody bathroom, suppressing evidence and committing fraud and destroying evidence. Below is a small examples of how the prosecution suppressed evidence. The prosecution lied in court when prosecutor Comoedi asked Amanda why she called her mother at 12.00 pm when phone records showed she called her mother at 12.47 pm.

The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;

The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were “do overs”;

The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;

The prosecution claimed that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was produced during a set of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination;

The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA laboratory as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab;

The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;

The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination-control tests for this process.

*Vixen attacks C&V, Hellman and the supreme court for being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt police/prosecutors who committed numerous abuses as detailed above.



*Vixen falsely accusing judge Hellman to take a massive bribe to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty whilst viciously attacking Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11669633

*Vixen lying on an industrial scale in her posts and then attacks people for lying. Vixen feels it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of a crime on the basis of false claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13170726

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13920821

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13941551

*Witnesses such as Curalto and Quintavelle lying and it is perfectly acceptable to convict people on the basis of false testimony.

*Complain the supreme court acted illegally in annulling the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele but had no problem with corrupt police breaking numerous Italian laws in the interrogation and for Amanda to be convicted for Callunia on the basis of an illegal interrogation as per the link below.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/echr-case-law/

Last edited by Welshman; 27th November 2022 at 01:32 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 27th November 2022, 01:47 PM   #117
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why were Knox' parents and friends spreading false claims about police brutality and encouraging Knox to say she was hit, yet not once did any of the attorneys lodge a complaint against the police? Can't prosecute an attorney for going through the correct channels.
Point being, that as soon as Knox made the claim, PM Mignini was required by law to investigate it. He didn't. If you know different, please provide the citation.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2022, 01:48 PM   #118
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post

*Vixen attacks C&V, Hellman and the supreme court for being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt police/prosecutors who committed numerous abuses as detailed above.



*Vixen falsely accusing judge Hellman to take a massive bribe to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty whilst viciously attacking Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime.

This is what was being said about Hellmann:

Quote:
I'll tell you some "inside news" I forgot to tell you: I found out that one reliable "source" has told about Pratillo Hellmann's bribe

The source has been Pratillo Hellmann's laywer. He said - in an unsolicited conversation - that Hellmann received on 500.000 US $ on a bank account.

He pointed out that it was US dollars, not Euros.

He told that directly to Mignini while sitting at a table at a Perugian pub. Basically suggesting it, thus, I suppose, as a track. Unfortunately neither Mignini or the lawyers friends sitting there were able to record him - it was not waited for.

There are also other informal declaration that I know were made, providing other pieces of information. The lawyer didn't know the overall amount of the bribe but said he knew Zanetti was corrupted as well. What we know from other sources is that the overall amount of the bribe was about 2 million Euros.

The lawyer made this statement only 1 month ago.

At least 5 people were corrupted

The lawyer says this because this is Perugia, Italy. A place where people can't really "hide" thing. We call these kind of secrets "a Pulcinella's secret"


Also the Narducci - Monster of Florence involvement was a Pulcinella's secret. Actually the 2 million figure was a figure already known and talked about days before the verdict. And it was the reason why a crowd gathered in front of the court chanting "vergogna"
Source: Macchiavelli


Let's face it, Hellmann was brought in to fix 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 27th November 2022, 01:50 PM   #119
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Point being, that as soon as Knox made the claim, PM Mignini was required by law to investigate it. He didn't. If you know different, please provide the citation.
If the aim is to pervert the course of justice, then you can be prosecuted.

Best to get a lawyer to lodge the complaint and refrain from going to a PR agency. Courts don't like people trying a case outside court.
__________________
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 27th November 2022, 02:10 PM   #120
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the aim is to pervert the course of justice, then you can be prosecuted.

Best to get a lawyer to lodge the complaint and refrain from going to a PR agency. Courts don't like people trying a case outside court.
It's unclear what you're even talking about. It reads a bit like a word salad, words tossed together which have no dressing on 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
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 11:40 AM.
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.