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 18th February 2024, 05:10 PM   #1441
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The legal point (note the topic is about the trial/s) about Gill and Hampikan is that they were and are NOT a part of the trial. You are the one angry about Stefanoni having the title 'Dr'. I for one could not give a toss.
It doesn't MATTER whether they were part of the trial so stop using that as an excuse. What matters is that they can read and interpret Stefanoni's analysis just like C & V and other experts did.

I'm not angry about Stefanoni using the title of Dr. at all. I'm also not the one who brought it up.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please stop the logical fallacies.
Quote any logical fallacies I've used.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
BTW Stefanoni cannot be 'excoriated' by C&V as they are not her superiors in any way, legally or by status. Do try to understand perspective and relationships.
LOL. Since when can someone or something only be excoriated by a superior?
By the way, C & V most certainly are her superiors by education as they held Ph.D's in Forensic Biology( both also hold medical degrees) and not a mere Bachelor of Science in Biology as Stefanoni did.

Do try and not gaslight us.
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 18th February 2024, 05:14 PM   #1442
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Vixen what is a tu quoque fallacy and how do Stacy's statements fit the definition?
Wiki is your friend:

Quote:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation.

From a logical and argumentative point of view, whataboutism is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

As an example, Stacyhs points out that Sollecito is as much a Doctor as Stefanoni, completely out of the blue, when the issue of Stefanoni having a Dr. designation is Stacyhs' and LondonJohn's gripe, no-one else's. Then there is the issue that the various prosecutors are equally on trial as the defendants.
__________________
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 18th February 2024, 05:17 PM   #1443
MarkCorrigan
Penultimate Amazing
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,842
Again, I'm asking for YOU to provide the definition because you throw these words about like you know what they mean when quite frequently you don't.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2024, 05:19 PM   #1444
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I'm still interested in seeing where you got your definition of the word, given that criticising someone doesn't require "power or rank".
Hello? I was talking about the courts. Me criticising C&V means nothing. A higher court criticising C&V as expert witnesses is a reference to the Supreme Court's status as being higher than that of Hellman's Appeal Court and thus the criticism has actual legal meaning. Now do you understand?
__________________
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 18th February 2024, 05:20 PM   #1445
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Again, I'm asking for YOU to provide the definition because you throw these words about like you know what they mean when quite frequently you don't.
See above.
__________________
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 18th February 2024, 05:35 PM   #1446
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
This is from the article you linked:
Quote:
Quote:
Right now, Amanda Knox is a convicted felon who served three years.

Knox still owes damages of about $100,000 as well. This award over a decade ago was to Patrick because Knox had framed him for murder when under no pressure (as all courts agreed).

Because of an absurd mistake by the bungling European Court of Human Rights - falsely concluding from “evidence” that one of Knox’s lawyers made up that Knox was (1) a formal suspect (2) under extreme police pressure, and (3) should have had a lawyer present (4) when she was “interrogated” - Knox is being given a chance to annul her felony.
You then claimed I was lying when I wrote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1) Since the SC annulled the calunnia conviction last October, Knox has NO convictions, much less felonies, still standing against her.

2) Since the SC has annulled the calunnia conviction, the penalty awarded to Lumumba is also null and void.

3) NOT "all courts agreed" that Knox was under "no pressure":

Hellmann: "...makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements..."

4) There is no evidence that Knox's lawyer "made up" anything in the appeal to the ECHR or that their findings were 'bungled'.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Now who's using an ad hominem by claiming I'm lying? What am I lying about?

When a conviction is annulled, is that person still convicted? Yes or no?

When a conviction is annulled, is any penalty/fine under said conviction still in force? Yes or no?

Did the Hellmann court find that Knox was under extreme psychological pressure? Yes or no?

Three very simple questions, Vixen. If any of them are "no", then please provide the supporting evidence.
Hellmann confirmed the conviction for calunnia. What is your point?

Your technique of tu quoche , ad hominem and changing the subject or context, means reasoning with you on this topic is like trying to plait a bucket of eels. So I am sorry, but I am out. It is futile.
I'm not doing any of the above. What you're doing is trying desperately to avoid answering questions you don't like the answers to.

Speaking of of changing the subject or context, you claimed "NO court" said Knox was under pressure. I quoted Hellmann saying exactly that and now your try to divert from that by saying he upheld the calunnia conviction. THAT was not the point! But you know that. Gaslighting 101.
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 18th February 2024, 05:44 PM   #1447
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please read carefully:

The Supreme Court (first chamber) confirms Vecchiotti & Conti acted improperly and ultra vires.

Nencini was not the Supreme Court. Nencini was the Appeal Court.
I do know that. Brain fart. I'm recovering from an exceptionally bad virus right now.

Again, quote exactly where Chieffi says C&V acted "beyond their legal power or authority".

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do not know enough about court procedures to make ridiculous claims about Stefanoni's merits.
Now who's resorting to an ad hominem? I base my opinion on Stefanoni's merits on this particular case on the opinions of several far more qualified and educated forensic experts who disagree with her.
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 18th February 2024, 05:55 PM   #1448
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please stop the logical fallacies. BTW Stefanoni cannot be 'excoriated' by C&V as they are not her superiors in any way, legally or by status. Do try to understand perspective and relationships.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hello? I was talking about the courts. Me criticising C&V means nothing. A higher court criticising C&V as expert witnesses is a reference to the Supreme Court's status as being higher than that of Hellman's Appeal Court and thus the criticism has actual legal meaning. Now do you understand?
Nonsense. Besides, as already posted, C & V most certainly were Stefanoni's 'superiors' in status. Or will you now claim that a BS holds as much 'status' as a PH. D. and a M.D.?
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 18th February 2024, 06:19 PM   #1449
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop lying. Stefanoni has an impeccable background in DNA testing. She helped identify the tsunami victims. She is a doctor as that is what Italians call someone with her qualifications.


Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Stefanoni's allegedly 'impeccable background in DNA testing' has now got a great big, fat black mark as supported by several forensic experts with far more experience and credentials than she has.

You can call her 'Dr.' if you like, but then you should also refer to Raffaele as Dr. Sollecito as he also meets the Italian qualifications: a four year uni degree.

Looks like you need reminding that ALL the luminol footprints tested negative for blood. Like 'Dr.' Stefanoni, you have a selective memory.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As an example, Stacyhs points out that Sollecito is as much a Doctor as Stefanoni, completely out of the blue, when the issue of Stefanoni having a Dr. designation is Stacyhs' and LondonJohn's gripe, no-one else's. Then there is the issue that the various prosecutors are equally on trial as the defendants.
Not out of the blue at all as I was replying to your post regarding the qualifications in Italy for the title of "Dr." It was not a tu quoque fallacy as you claim. Try again.

"Then there is the issue that the various prosecutors are equally on trial as the defendants."

What?

Just for kicks though: who actually stand convicted of crimes?

Prosecutor Manuela Comodi "sentenced to a three-month suspended sentence and a one-year ban from holding public office for "for having unlawfully accessed the computer system of the Prosecutor’s Office, with at least one of the accesses that concerned the Palamara affair. Manuela Comodi, as mentioned, will perform the functions of civil judge at the Court."

Monica Napoleoni and Lorena Zugarini were sentenced to 3+ years in prison for illegally using police databases to illegally investigate Napoleoni's ex-husband and a court child psychologist who recommended Napoleoni not get custody of her son. Several of MN's subordinates were also convicted and given lesser sentences or probation.
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 18th February 2024, 08:40 PM   #1450
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Wiki is your friend:




.... Then there is the issue that the various prosecutors are equally on trial as the defendants.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
....
"Then there is the issue that the various prosecutors are equally on trial as the defendants."

What?

Just for kicks though: who actually stand convicted of crimes?

Prosecutor Manuela Comodi "sentenced to a three-month suspended sentence and a one-year ban from holding public office for "for having unlawfully accessed the computer system of the Prosecutor’s Office, with at least one of the accesses that concerned the Palamara affair. Manuela Comodi, as mentioned, will perform the functions of civil judge at the Court."

Monica Napoleoni and Lorena Zugarini were sentenced to 3+ years in prison for illegally using police databases to illegally investigate Napoleoni's ex-husband and a court child psychologist who recommended Napoleoni not get custody of her son. Several of MN's subordinates were also convicted and given lesser sentences or probation.
There is an issue here that Vixen either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore. This issue isn't that the prosecutors in this case violated criminal or procedural laws or were incompetent, but that rather that, under Italian law, the procedure of a criminal trial (except for a summary trial) requires an adversarial debate between the prosecution and defense before the neutral judges(s) on the merits and on the applicable law.

Italian Constitution, Article 111*

Quote:
Jurisdiction shall be administered through due process regulated by law. All court trials shall be conducted with cross-examination between the
parties, with equal conditions before a third-party neutral judge.
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 187, Oggetto della prova (Facts subject to proof)**

* https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_st...ne_inglese.pdf

** https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...-i/art187.html
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 19th February 2024, 01:00 AM   #1451
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,263
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hello? I was talking about the courts.

Fine, so you'll be able to provide a citation for a court defining "excoriate" as requiring power or rank.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2024, 06:08 AM   #1452
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There is an issue here that Vixen either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore. This issue isn't that the prosecutors in this case violated criminal or procedural laws or were incompetent, but that rather that, under Italian law, the procedure of a criminal trial (except for a summary trial) requires an adversarial debate between the prosecution and defense before the neutral judges(s) on the merits and on the applicable law.

Italian Constitution, Article 111*



Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 187, Oggetto della prova (Facts subject to proof)**

* https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_st...ne_inglese.pdf

** https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...-i/art187.html

That is true but that adversarial debate takes place within the confines of the hearing or the Court. This is one of the major criticisms of Conti & Vecchiotti by Chieffi Supreme Court, and indeed, of Hellman: they failed to refer to the other party and Hellmanm left out Novelli's contra findings to C&V out of his MR all together. In the MR the judge is supposed to sum up each of the parties' arguments and then explain why he or she found in favour of one party or parties over the other/s.

Quote:
On receiving this information from the consultant mentioned – who spoke under oath about avant-garde techniques – the court was once again guilty of gross misrepresentation in an important passage of argument, which concerned the reliability of the results of the tests performed; [the Court] assumed new assessments could not even be attempted on the traces which were found at a later date, thus affecting the logical coherency of the Court’s reasoning (Section 1, 25.6.2007, no. 24667). The equally authoritative points proffered by Prof. Torricelli were totally omitted. She seriously undermined the information that the new trace contained only a minimal amount of DNA, having quantified the useful material in the new trace as 120 picograms (hearing on 6.9.2011, page 91 of the transcript) – an amount which lent itself to a double amplification – and she challenged the methodology with which Prof. Vecchiotti came to the decision not to proceed, in a report ostensibly not signed by the consultants of the General Prosecutor and the civil parties. The authoritative nature of the observations from the two party consultants obliged the court to address their points, which clashed irreconcilably with the propositions put forward by Prof. Vecchiotti – [propositions] which could certainly have been adopted by the court, but [only] after an evaluation of the opposing theories, which were of equal scientific value.
Chieffi report
__________________
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 19th February 2024, 06:13 AM   #1453
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Fine, so you'll be able to provide a citation for a court defining "excoriate" as requiring power or rank.
You can read the Chieffi Report for yourself. Let me know whether it fits the description of 'excoriating' or not.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/


Quote:
The second court endorsed the theory of probable contamination proposed by the experts based on [the theory that] “anything is possible”, which is not a valid argument due to its generic nature, again incurring a logical and legal error: the means of contamination needed to be identified if it was to be used to invalidate the data provided by the [initial] technical report; it was not enough to theorize inadequate professionalism by the operatives during the evidence collection process, especially in a context in which laboratory contamination was mathematically excluded – i.e. the most demonstrable and persistent type of contamination – and in which negative controls were performed by Dr. Stefanoni in order to exclude it, controls which were assumed a little too nonchalantly to be missing by the experts just because they were not attached to the report. The [Court’s] supporting argument, as the appellants held, did not take into account the authoritative dissenting voices on the existence of contamination; no adequate explanation was offered as to why this had affected only some of the traces examined and not others (those most challenging from a defence standpoint); but above all it was based on the erroneous conviction that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the absence of contamination, in a context in which the results from the initial technical consultation were based on an adequately documented investigation, on evidence collection which had been carried out in full view of the party consultants who made no objections, on laboratory work in an uncontaminated environment, work performed according to tried and tested methods, whose results could certainly be called into question, but for what they were able to prove, not for the preliminary procedures carried out with consultants from all sides being heard, the outcome of which did not present any critical issues at the time, but only in hindsight (from pages 289-298 the ruling of first instance goes into detail on this point, with an abundance of arguments only partially refuted adequately; equally significant were Dr. Stefanoni’s observations, brought to the attention of the second court at the hearing on 6.9.2011). This context supported [the theory] that procedures were carried out correctly, which inevitably put the burden of identifying and proving contamination on those who claimed it; we cannot accept that a scientific investigation can be rendered null and void on the basis of a “falsificationist” approach, based on the theoretical possibility that the item was contaminated, since opining in such a way would lead to every laboratory result being easily assailed and deprived of any probative value. The principal which must be held operative is “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” [the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies it], as recalled by the appellant public party. The rebuttal of scientific evidence necessarily had to demonstrate the specific and concrete factual circumstances supporting the alleged contamination.
Chieffi Report


But of course, Bognionro fixed it for a lesser commerical law judge to take the case instead of the usual serious crimes. Hellmann had near zero experience in murder cases and one of the main criticisms of the Supreme Court is that he treated each piece of evidence in piecemeal rather than looking at the picture as a whole.
__________________
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 19th February 2024, 06:56 AM   #1454
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is true but that adversarial debate takes place within the confines of the hearing or the Court. This is one of the major criticisms of Conti & Vecchiotti by Chieffi Supreme Court, and indeed, of Hellman: they failed to refer to the other party and Hellmanm left out Novelli's contra findings to C&V out of his MR all together. In the MR the judge is supposed to sum up each of the parties' arguments and then explain why he or she found in favour of one party or parties over the other/s.

Chieffi report
Whether or not Conti and Vecchiotti were correct in stating that they were unable to DNA profile the knife handle sample at issue with their testing equipment - and the Chieffi CSC panel would not have any knowledge of the testing equipment capability - the Nencini court did have that sample tested by the Carabinieri DNA test lab. It was found to have no incriminating value since it did not include any DNA of Kercher. It did have Knox's DNA, which was expected, since as she stated, she used the knife at Sollecito's apartment for food preparation.

Because the alleged evidence of the use of the knife in the murder/rape of Kercher was clearly contaminated and obtained by methods contrary to international standards and without the required repeatability needed to comply with Italian law CPP Article 192 paragraph 2, Novelli's statement, even if correct, was irrelevant to the judgment. Therefore, there was no need to include it in the logic of the MR. The Chieffi CSC panel did not have the technical expertise or the willingness to comply with Italian law to include this understanding in its MR.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th February 2024 at 07:03 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 19th February 2024, 07:11 AM   #1455
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
[quote=Vixen;14262891]You can read the Chieffi Report for yourself. Let me know whether it fits the description of 'excoriating' or not.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/


Chieffi Report


But of course, Bognionro fixed it for a lesser commerical law judge to take the case instead of the usual serious crimes. Hellmann had near zero experience in murde r cases and one of the main criticisms of the Supreme Court is that he treated each piece of evidence in piecemeal rather than looking at the picture as a whole.[/QUOTE]

This statement is absolutely incorrect under Italian law CPP Article 192 paragraph 2, whether it is by you or by the Chieffi CSC panel.

Each judicial "fact" inferred must be derived from the serious, precise, and consistent - that is, relevant and credible circumstantial evidence before all the lawfully inferred facts are linked together in the reasoning explaining the verdict that is presented in the MR.
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 19th February 2024, 02:06 PM   #1456
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please read carefully:

The Supreme Court (first chamber) confirms Vecchiotti & Conti acted improperly and ultra vires.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Again, quote exactly where Chieffi says C&V acted "beyond their legal power or authority".
Vixen can't. Why? Because even the Chieffi panel in 2013 did not say that. If they had, Vixen (or someone else) would have posted a citation proving it. That's what makes the claim a factoid.

To be clear, Chieffi did nothing of the sort with regards to C&V. Chieffi criticised HELLMANN's court for abdicating it's judicial responsibility, allegedly passing it off to C&V, for letting C&V de facto make a judicial decision FOR Hellmann.

Full stop.

Upthread, I posted a LONGGGG post which included everything that Chieffi wrote about C&V. It was from a translation done by guilters.

None of it included anything to do with, "C&V acted beyond their legal power or authority." Acc. to Chieffi it was Hellmann who had done that. Me, I disagree with that observation, but.... can we just put to bed that C&V were never criticised in that manner?

Probably not. Factoids are meant to be repeated, they are not meant to have an accompanying citation!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 19th February 2024 at 02:08 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2024, 03:47 PM   #1457
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do know that the defence lawyers did witness Stefanoni's forensic testing of the DNA? It is all done by computer printout so there is no way she could have fiddled it for Mez' DNA to appear on Sollecito's knife. The defense forensic expert made no complaint about Stefanoni's methods.
You do understand that lawyers are not forensic experts therefore their presence at the testing means nothing regarding the scientific validity of those tests?

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed Stefanoni "fiddled it for Mez' DNA to appear on Sollecito's knife". What we, and several experts, have said is that her analysis of the knife did not follow standard protocols for LCN testing.

The defense expert may not have made any objections to Strefanoni's methods but plenty of forensic experts certainly have.
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 19th February 2024, 04:13 PM   #1458
MarkCorrigan
Penultimate Amazing
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,842
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You can read the Chieffi Report for yourself. Let me know whether it fits the description of 'excoriating' or not.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/


Chieffi Report


But of course, Bognionro fixed it for a lesser commerical law judge to take the case instead of the usual serious crimes. Hellmann had near zero experience in murder cases and one of the main criticisms of the Supreme Court is that he treated each piece of evidence in piecemeal rather than looking at the picture as a whole.
What a surprise, you've not answered the question you were asked but instead attempted to pretend you were being asked a much broader question.

Answer the actual questions people ask you Vixen, not what you wish they had asked you.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2024, 05:55 PM   #1459
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Fine, so you'll be able to provide a citation for a court defining "excoriate" as requiring power or rank.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You can read the Chieffi Report for yourself. Let me know whether it fits the description of 'excoriating' or not.
No, it doesn't.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
But of course, Bognionro fixed it for a lesser commerical law judge to take the case instead of the usual serious crimes.
That's quite the claim. Can you back it up with evidence?

Andrea Vogt, said this in 2010 about the appointment of Hellmann to the case:

Quote:
Legal observers in Perugia, however, maintain the change of magistrates from Sergio Matteini Chiari to Claudio Pratillo Hellmann was simply an "internal administrative issue."

Matteini Chiari, a judge who prosecuted the controversial Andreotti appeals trial over the mafia murder of an Italian journalist, is apparently in line to head the juvenile court.
Chiari was, in fact, appointed to the lead the juvenile division on Dec. 31, 2010. Did Bongiorno 'fix' that, too?

Like Hellmann, Matteini Chiari had some experience in criminal cases but was primarily a civil court judge:

Quote:
... the president of the civil section, Sergio Matteini Chiari, should preside over the Court of Assizes of Appeal. A long career in the judiciary - he joined in 1967 - so much so that he aspired to the highest seat, that of the Umbrian Court of Appeal. The Palazzo dei Marescialli Commission had proposed him, then the plenum chose Wladimiro De Nunzio while Matteini Chiari should go to preside over the juvenile court (whose presidency has been vacant for a year).
Quote:
In 2003 he became president of the civil section of the Court. Supporting him in the onerous task will be another civil lawyer, also an expert in tax matters, Massimo Zanetti, rapporteur of the trial. It will be up to him to carry out the introductory report, summarizing all the stages of the first degree trial.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hellmann had near zero experience in murder cases
I remember you made this same claim several years ago. At the time, I also remember citing 2 or 3 murder trials he had presided over before the Kercher case including this one:


Quote:
There is more civil than criminal in the biography of the President of the Court Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, born in Padua 69 years ago. However, he has been applied to the criminal section several times, even for relevant trials such as the one which, after eight years in prison and three levels of judgement, cleared the husband of the accusation of the murder of Cinzia Bruno which took place in Rome in 1993.A complicated mystery , a judicial error which Perugia remedied.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th February 2024 at 05:56 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2024, 06:12 PM   #1460
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Once again, three very simple questions, Vixen. If any of them are "no", then please provide the supporting evidence.

When a conviction is annulled, is that person still convicted? Yes or no?

When a conviction is annulled, is any penalty/fine under said conviction still in force? Yes or no?

Did the Hellmann court find that Knox was under extreme psychological pressure? Yes or no?
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 19th February 2024, 09:14 PM   #1461
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please read carefully:

The Supreme Court (first chamber) confirms Vecchiotti & Conti acted improperly and ultra vires.
How many times do people need to post citations from the 2013 Chieffi motivations report, that debunk your repeated factoid?

The term ultra vires was NOT used by Chieffi in relation to C&V. The citations I cut and pasted from Chieffi (above) are the sum total of what he said about them.....

Never mind. It's like talking to a wall.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2024, 01:21 AM   #1462
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
Once Vixen finally convinces us that the evidence against Amanda really was overwhelming and probative beyond any reasonable doubt, and that Meredith couldn't possibly have been killed by the uninvited crook at the scene covered in her blood with knife marks on his hand who fled the country and has a continued criminal history of violence against women post-release - we can finally move on to the real purpose of this thread, which is deciding which of the following happened:

1. Amanda was freed because of Raffaele's family mafia ties that rigged the appeals court in the students favor.

2. Amanda was freed because the US Sate Department's strict college coeds are made of sugar and spice and everything nice policy and are way too precious to go to prison for murder even if they're a psycho sex killer.

Thoughts Vixen? Which one do you think?

Last edited by bagels; 20th February 2024 at 01:26 AM.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2024, 08:22 AM   #1463
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
How many times do people need to post citations from the 2013 Chieffi motivations report, that debunk your repeated factoid?

The term ultra vires was NOT used by Chieffi in relation to C&V. The citations I cut and pasted from Chieffi (above) are the sum total of what he said about them.....

Never mind. It's like talking to a wall.
Bill Williams, I agree with you that the term "ultra vires" wasn't used in the Chieffi CSC panel Mr against C&V, but that was only in the public part that everyone could see.

There must be another secret part that only guilters can see. The writing may be visible when one views the document with special guilter glasses. It may be written in invisible ink. Or maybe it's just a fabrication.
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 20th February 2024, 01:45 PM   #1464
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Those same special guilter glasses are able to see Knox's 'bloody footprints', evidence of a clean-up, and deep into the 'real' feelings, thoughts, and motives of Knox and Sollecito, too.
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 21st February 2024, 01:39 PM   #1465
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
I wonder if Nadeau,Vogt and/or Pisa will cover the new defamation trial in April.
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 22nd February 2024, 07:33 PM   #1466
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
New info on Guede:
Quote:
The Rome court has ordered a year of special surveillance for Rudy Guede, accused of violence against his ex-girlfriend, a 23-year-old from Viterbo. The 36-year-old Ivorian has finished his sentence for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Quote:
In the device that the police headquarters of the Lazio capital requested and obtained from the Rome prevention measures court, it is established that the 36 year old will not be able to leave Viterbo and will not be able to leave home from 9.30pm to 6.30am. It is one of the harshest provisions foreseen by the "red code" for violence against women in cases of abuse and stalking.

Furthermore, Guede, who has been wearing the electronic bracelet that signals if he gets too close to the victim for two months, cannot leave Viterbo without first communicating it to the judicial authority and cannot associate with criminals. He is under penalty of arrest, which can also take place in a deferred manner, i.e. within 48 hours of the violation of the provisions.

The lawyer who protects the interests of Rudy Guede's ex-partner is satisfied with the decision of the Rome court. "The red code is a very important tool for the protection of women", says Francesco Guido of the Cosenza Court. "Now my client feels protected by the State", he adds. "Furthermore, what we had announced and expected is taking place: there are still many elements to emerge and the special surveillance provision goes in this direction", concludes the lawyer.

continue on: https://www.fanpage.it/attualita/rud...anza-speciale/
continua su: https://www.fanpage.it/attualita/rud...anza-speciale/
https://www.fanpage.it/
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 23rd February 2024, 05:56 AM   #1467
TomG
Muse
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Thanks for the info. I think Rudy needs an electronic codpiece rather than a bracelet.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2024, 07:25 AM   #1468
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,268
I seem to remember posts predicting that Amanda would soon be back in trouble with the law.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2024, 02:38 PM   #1469
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Not just in trouble, but that she would 'kill again'.
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 24th February 2024, 03:55 AM   #1470
MarkCorrigan
Penultimate Amazing
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,842
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not just in trouble, but that she would 'kill again'.
Well she is a vicious psychopath who cartwheels after committing a murder. Maybe we should give her a serial killer nickname, like 'The Cartwheel Killer'?

Doesn't have quite the ring to it like BTK or Jack the Ripper but it's a start.
MarkCorrigan 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 24th February 2024, 12:58 PM   #1471
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Well she is a vicious psychopath who cartwheels after committing a murder. Maybe we should give her a serial killer nickname, like 'The Cartwheel Killer'?

Doesn't have quite the ring to it like BTK or Jack the Ripper but it's a start.
I started in on all this in 2010 (has it been THAT long!).... and then dropped it. I was looking for 'online info' on the case, that being the time after the first conviction.

Back then I thought the pair guilty, I thought that the first court had basically proved it.

Yet on-line were all the slut-shaming of Knox.... including one animation which showed her cartoonish character cartwheeling into and out of court. For the longest while, I though that that's what she had done. So I dropped it, there was a lot of foolishness.

When I got really engaged after the 2011 acquittal, I quickly discovered the width and depth of the on-line shaming, including (back then) 3 well-traveled websites which committed themselves to shaming Knox, Sollecito, as well as those innocence supporters who they actively doxxed....

.... and then produced more animations about them which they posted far and wide. It really was quite remarkable the effort put into this shaming program!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 24th February 2024 at 12:59 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 24th February 2024, 05:54 PM   #1472
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
It's still going on. Roberta Glass recently pumped at a horrific 20+ series on Knox with about one per week or two. Glass is one of the worst for slut shaming and posting misinformation and outright lies. When confronted with contrary evidence, she bans the poster making their comments invisible to others. Yet, I see people giving her all kinds of kudos as if her series had any basis in reality. Just goes to show how ignorant people are but who feel free to post comments anyway. The vast majority of them are just there to anonymously spew invectives.
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 24th February 2024, 05:57 PM   #1473
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Some commenters have a convenient habit of disappearing when asked to provide evidence of their claims or to answer questions they don't like the answers to.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:53 AM   #1474
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Another one. Forty years in prison. But this time, one of the exonerated is freed into terminal cancer, with only months left to live. Jerome Kennedy, a lawyer with Innocence Canada, said the whole case hinged on a police obsession with Mailman.

https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/...ful-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 Today, 01:05 PM   #1475
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Another one. Forty years in prison. But this time, one of the exonerated is freed into terminal cancer, with only months left to live. Jerome Kennedy, a lawyer with Innocence Canada, said the whole case hinged on a police obsession with Mailman.

https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/...ful-conviction
For a view of exonerations in a country that explicitly aspires to due process, the National Registry of Exonerations (a project of three US universities) is invaluable. Their recent online publication, Police Misconduct in Exoneration Cases in Los Angeles County reviews 89 exoneration cases that include mention of 160 unique police officer names (some cases include the same police officers). The report finds that of those 160 officers, 91 committed misconduct in at least one of the exoneration cases.

See:

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...elesCounty.pdf
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
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 01:13 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.