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 30th November 2022, 03:22 PM   #241
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Bill Williams, I missed this when I read it the first time.

I think your statement has an error. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Marasca CSC panel MR indeed states that there was no [credible] evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the murder room. It does acknowledge that Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage at some unspecified times. IIUC, no one has argued that Knox and Sollecito were not in the cottage - but not the murder room itself - [hours] after the murder took place.

IIUC, the Marasca CSC panel MR does not at all state that Knox and/or Sollecito were in the murder room at some unspecified time.
This is materially incorrect. As per Masi-Martuscelli - Favi referencing directly from Marasca-Bruno:

Quote:
It does appear clear, in the light of the judicial truth established in the acquittal ruling concerning the indisputable presence of Knox in 7 Via della Pergola at the time of the murder, that if Sollecito had immediately said, without later changing his story, that the young woman had been far away from him during that time, and if he had told in a precise way the time at which she had arrived at his house and also her condition [11 ->] at that time – presumably upset or even extremely distraught, his legal situation would certainly have been different.

<snip>

On the other hand, given the indisputable presence of Knox in that house, it is difficult to believe he wasn't there with her” (Page 49 of the decision) the impact on his request for a declaration by the court on the infliction of a penalty and the long time he was detained is still more obvious. In fact, if he had intervened only after the homicide, he should have told the investigators, and could have thus explained not only the lies in his statements, but above all the reasons, aside from having participated in the murder, for his traces found at the scene (although these are different traces from those initially attributed to him) which he could have left at a later date. He could then have become a suspect for the crime of aiding and abetting, but this would not have resulted in a custody order. If, however, he was present in the house at the time of the murder, but had not participated in it, as is considered a possibility in the judgment of acquittal of 27 March 2015, we can't exclude a simple “collusion” charge arising in the light of the “complete absence of biological traces attributable to them in the murder room”. Equally, an immediate admission that he was present but had nothing to do to the crime (necessarily accompanied by a full description of what had occurred) would have probably improved Sollecito's legal position. However, if we are to consider Sollecito as only a conspirator, an idea which the acquittal decision truly expresses without espousing it, leaving, however, doubt whether he was present at the time of the murder, the acknowledgement of the right to damages for unjust detention must be ruled out on the basis of the principle established by the Court of Cassation n. 15745 of 19 February 2015 [continues]
Florence 22 January 2017 Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli Reporting Judge Dr. Paola MASI / & Favi

So the finding was that Knox was present during the murder.

You cannot escape 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 30th November 2022, 03:28 PM   #242
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Oh Vixen, the case has been resolved. You are profoundly unhappy with that result, but it is final. The Supreme Court in Italy has issued its final ruling. Now that is a 'judicial fact'.
If the final ruling is as a result of corruption and bribery, then it will automatically ipso facto be found null and void.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 03:35 PM   #243
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
1. Kercher was attacked at various points in her room.

2. The fatal knife wounds were inflicted (by Guede) when Kercher was on all fours near the wardrobe/closet.

3. Kercher did not die in that location though.

4. The assailant - Guede - pulled Kercher round in an arc, very shortly after having stabbed her.

5. This seems likely to have been the outcome of an attempt by the assailant - Guede - either to remove Kercher’s jeans, or to reposition her for carrying out a fuller sexual assault.

4. Kercher’s body was not “placed on a sheet” prior to being moved. Anyone who knows the case properly know this, of course.

5. Kercher continued to bleed out from her neck wound once she’d been repositioned by her assailant - Guede. She ultimately died, perhaps some 5-15 minutes after the stabbing, in the very position in which she was later discovered.

6. The forensic evidence, most notably the blood evidence, makes it absolutely certain that the movement of Kercher’s body was a) ante-mortem, and b) within literally a minute or two of the fatal stab wounds having been inflicted (by Guede). Nobody - least of all Knox and/or Sollecito - returned to the scene hours later (or even 20 minutes later) to move Kercher’s body.


I’m reprising the above info just so we’re all in possession of the known facts and the known truths on this matter (because some of us continue to be ignorant….)
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 30th November 2022, 03:39 PM   #244
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Being a suspect by the police in an initial investigation is not the same as there being enough probable cause to charge by the prosecutor.

As for the sex toys business, since the treatment of the victim was utterly disgusting with her privacy invaded and her body mutilated, then I am afraid lewd behaviour by a suspect does become relevant in a sex crime.
Vixen, your statement is a fallacy since the "lewd behaviour" attributed to Knox was a behavior that was very common among very large numbers of persons, including young women, who are not perpetrators of sex crimes.

For example, the use or ownership of sex toys such as vibrators by women is apparently common in the US and elsewhere. The 3rd source below states that the 2016 global market size was in excess of $10 billion (USD):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...american-women

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/s...ronavirus.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ex-toy-market/
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 30th November 2022, 03:42 PM   #245
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the final ruling is as a result of corruption and bribery, then it will automatically ipso facto be found null and void.

You’ll be sure to let us know as soon as that actually happens then, Vixen

And how do you propose to magic away the ECHR adjudication? Some similar nonsense?

Oh and your logic here is interesting. After all, a simple substitution of terms leads to:

If the lower courts’ rulings are as a result of grossly unlawful analysis/weighing of evidence by those courts resulting in unlawful verdicts which must be reversed, then they will automatically ipso facto (LOL) be found null and void.

Ring any bells, Vixen?
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 30th November 2022, 03:42 PM   #246
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,268
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the final ruling is as a result of corruption and bribery, then it will automatically ipso facto be found null and void.
As you once said, we could 'what-if' all day long.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post13953405

There is no evidence of corruption or bribery. The ruling of the Supreme Court is final.
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 30th November 2022, 03:47 PM   #247
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Vixen, your statement is a fallacy since the "lewd behaviour" attributed to Knox was a behavior that was very common among very large numbers of persons, including young women, who are not perpetrators of sex crimes.

For example, the use or ownership of sex toys such as vibrators by women is apparently common in the US and elsewhere. The 3rd source below states that the 2016 global market size was in excess of $10 billion (USD):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...american-women

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/s...ronavirus.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ex-toy-market/
The fact that large numbers of people have sex toys does not mean that it is not offensive to make someone look at the article concerned. There are many people who would be upset to have a sex toy waved in their face without a by your leave.

Mez had mentioned to a friend that she found it disturbing to be confronted with Knox' sex toy when she used the bathroom.


Anyway, that is not the reason Knox came under suspicion. At an initial stage of a gruesome murder, there will be many likely suspects, sometimes the entire male population of a town. I do not buy this idea that Knox should never have been a suspect. If someone is murdered in your home then I am afraid you will almost automatically be considered a suspect until such time you can be ruled out. I am not convinced there was anything at all personal about it in the case of Knox.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 03:50 PM   #248
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You’ll be sure to let us know as soon as that actually happens then, Vixen

And how do you propose to magic away the ECHR adjudication? Some similar nonsense?

Oh and your logic here is interesting. After all, a simple substitution of terms leads to:

If the lower courts’ rulings are as a result of grossly unlawful analysis/weighing of evidence by those courts resulting in unlawful verdicts which must be reversed, then they will automatically ipso facto (LOL) be found null and void.

Ring any bells, Vixen?
Neither Massei nor Nencini were declared 'mistrials' so the court documents pertaining to these hearings stand in law and remain in the legal archives as public record.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 03:56 PM   #249
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
The judicial finding in the Knox criminal slander conviction - which had been finalised by a previous SC panel - is what placed Knox in the cottage.

All subsequent courts were effectively obliged to account for/incorporate this judicial fact in their own reasons: they’d have trigged an immediate messy review of the criminal slander conviction had they contradicted it.

Fortunately for justice, the ECHR has since humiliated the investigation/court process in the Knox criminal slander conviction, finding it to be fundamentally unsound on the grounds of multiple egregious breaches of Italian law and the ECHR itself. The ECHR requires proper remedy to be applied by Italy, which in practice means a directed acquittal since the abuses in this case were so huge that there’s literally no evidence against Knox if all the abuses are removed.

So any objective scholars of this case are now wholly entitled to erase everything that originated from the Knox criminal slander conviction, since we have official high-quality confirmation of what we all knew already: that Knox was disgracefully railroaded into a coerced false confession/accusation on that fateful night of 5th/6th November, by a corrupt law-breaking police and PM who knew exactly what they were doing that night.


Again, this is just by way of supplying correct background, and to put right some teeeeeeeeeeeeny-weeeeeeeeeeny bits of misinformation & misdirection
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 30th November 2022, 03:56 PM   #250
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,268
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Neither Massei nor Nencini were declared 'mistrials' so the court documents pertaining to these hearings stand in law and remain in the legal archives as public record.
Do read the final Supreme Court verdict
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 30th November 2022, 03:57 PM   #251
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Neither Massei nor Nencini were declared 'mistrials' so the court documents pertaining to these hearings stand in law and remain in the legal archives as public record.

No. No they don’t. Do some proper research - I’m fed up of doing it for you.
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 30th November 2022, 04:04 PM   #252
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is materially incorrect. As per Masi-Martuscelli - Favi referencing directly from Marasca-Bruno:

Florence 22 January 2017 Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli Reporting Judge Dr. Paola MASI / & Favi

So the finding was that Knox was present during the murder.

You cannot escape it.
"As per Masi-Martuscelli - Favi"!?

Aren't you the one who dismissed findings like the one Boninsegna made, you using grounds that Boninsegna had not heard any of the primary evidence?

Yet you do it for "Masi-Martuscelli - Favi", who similarly heard none of the primary evidence? You're at least consistent in inconsistently applying your reasonings.

Once again, please pick a lane.

Could there not be another reason why Masi-Martuscelli - Favi wrote what they wrote? That they wanted to save Italy judicial embarrassment? IIRC Masi-Martuscelli - Favi's decision is now in front of the ECHR. Perhaps we should see how that one comes out before quoting it with iron-clad certainty.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 30th November 2022 at 04:13 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 30th November 2022, 04:04 PM   #253
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the final ruling is as a result of corruption and bribery, then it will automatically ipso facto be found null and void.
Vixen, please provide a citation from Italian law that supports your statement.

Contrary to your statement:

No exceptions to the finality of final acquittals are allowed in accordance with CPP Article 648.

The accused person who has been finally dismissed ("prosciolto", meaning cleared or acquitted) or convicted shall not be tried again for the same offense, even if the conduct is considered differently in terms of the legal definition, stage of the offense, or circumstances, according to CPP Article 649.
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 30th November 2022, 04:08 PM   #254
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Just to be clear (in advance of the next near-inevitable hair-splitting and goalpost-shifting exercises):

The effect of the Marasca SC verdict was to legally obliterate every piece of judicial argument, judicial verdict and judicial reasoning from all of the lower courts. Those things no longer exist, and trying to rely on any of them to “support” an opinion is both incorrect and irrelevant.

However…… all of the evidence and testimony entered into every lower court trial still stands.

So, for example, take the alleged earwitness testimony of Capezzali. Her testimony to the Massei court still exists legally today, as does her direct and cross. But the Massei court’s assessment of her testimony, and the court’s use of that assessment as part of formulating its verdict and MR, both no longer exist in law.
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 30th November 2022, 04:10 PM   #255
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Did you not know that the victim was not killed in the position the body was found? Mez was actually killed nearby the 'closet' and her body later placed on a sheet and moved some eighteen inches to where it was found.


Battistelli certainly would not have known this as of 2 Nov2007 and neither would Luca Altieri. Yet Knox knew. And now you know. They say one learns something new every day. There's a new thing for you.

Altieri claimed Battistelli entered the room and lifed the duvet. This is another lie from Altieri because Battistelli denies he did any such thing. I know whose testimony I prefer. Altieri has shown himself to be an unreliable witness (cf the mobile phones). In any case, there is no way Battistelli would report anything back to Altieri.
I note that you're still not saying anything about misquoting the British girls, for what they said at trial. You're simply ignoring that you've been proven wrong - by none other than Mignini-friendly author John Follain.

Please at least deal with it before moving on. Do you agree with Follain that two of the British girls who testified said that they wanted to be careful, that what they observed about Knox's weird behaviour, was not to be seen as them accusing her of murder? Do you agree with Follain in reporting that?

Or are you doubling down on your slander about 'bullying behaviour' which you further claimed had been taken from the British girls' testimony.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:10 PM   #256
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Neither Massei nor Nencini were declared 'mistrials' so the court documents pertaining to these hearings stand in law and remain in the legal archives as public record.
Vixen, please provide a citation from Italian law that supports your implication that an Italian trial may be declared a "mistrial".

All Italian trial proceedings are public records that remain in the judicial archives of Italy.

Your misdirection leaves out that the Massei court and Nencini court of appeals judgments were quashed and the verdicts have no legal effect, except as evidence of flawed proceedings and judgments.
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 30th November 2022, 04:11 PM   #257
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
So, for example, take the alleged earwitness testimony of Capezzali. Her testimony to the Massei court still exists legally today, as does her direct and cross. But the Massei court’s assessment of her testimony, and the court’s use of that assessment as part of formulating its verdict and MR, both no longer exist in law.
Exactly.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:12 PM   #258
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
As you once said, we could 'what-if' all day long.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post13953405

There is no evidence of corruption or bribery. The ruling of the Supreme Court is final.


Watch this space.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:17 PM   #259
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Vixen, please provide a citation from Italian law that supports your statement.

Contrary to your statement:

No exceptions to the finality of final acquittals are allowed in accordance with CPP Article 648.

The accused person who has been finally dismissed ("prosciolto", meaning cleared or acquitted) or convicted shall not be tried again for the same offense, even if the conduct is considered differently in terms of the legal definition, stage of the offense, or circumstances, according to CPP Article 649.
A legal document cannot cloak a criminal act. It is automatically null and void.

For example, say I am a high up judge and you offer me €2m euros to fix a verdict and I carry it out accordingly. That contract you had with me is legally null and void because no individual can over rank the law of the State. So were it to be discovered the verdict was a result of bribery and corruption then I am afraid it would be nullified.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:24 PM   #260
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is materially incorrect. As per Masi-Martuscelli - Favi referencing directly from Marasca-Bruno:

Florence 22 January 2017 Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli Reporting Judge Dr. Paola MASI / & Favi

So the finding was that Knox was present during the murder.

You cannot escape it.
Vixen, you are, I hope, aware that the trial and judgment you quote in your post is from Sollecito's compensation hearing. It was not at all a trial on the merits, and the quoted statements made by the judge were in fact contrary to Article 27 of the Italian Constitution by appearing to attribute criminal responsibility to Sollecito (and Knox) after they had been finally acquitted.

The judge's statements are to be understood as an example of the not-unusual travesty that masquerades as justice in Italy.

It will be interesting to see how the ECHR evaluates this judgment when it publishes its judgment in Sollecito v. Italy. That publication may be several years from now.
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 30th November 2022, 04:24 PM   #261
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Just to be clear (in advance of the next near-inevitable hair-splitting and goalpost-shifting exercises):

The effect of the Marasca SC verdict was to legally obliterate every piece of judicial argument, judicial verdict and judicial reasoning from all of the lower courts. Those things no longer exist, and trying to rely on any of them to “support” an opinion is both incorrect and irrelevant.

However…… all of the evidence and testimony entered into every lower court trial still stands.

So, for example, take the alleged earwitness testimony of Capezzali. Her testimony to the Massei court still exists legally today, as does her direct and cross. But the Massei court’s assessment of her testimony, and the court’s use of that assessment as part of formulating its verdict and MR, both no longer exist in law.

You are quite wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the fact that post-Marasca-Bruno, the facts found from earlier courts were used against Sollecito, per Martuscelli, Masi.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:27 PM   #262
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
The judicial finding in the Knox criminal slander conviction - which had been finalised by a previous SC panel - is what placed Knox in the cottage.

All subsequent courts were effectively obliged to account for/incorporate this judicial fact in their own reasons: they’d have trigged an immediate messy review of the criminal slander conviction had they contradicted it.

Fortunately for justice, the ECHR has since humiliated the investigation/court process in the Knox criminal slander conviction, finding it to be fundamentally unsound on the grounds of multiple egregious breaches of Italian law and the ECHR itself. The ECHR requires proper remedy to be applied by Italy, which in practice means a directed acquittal since the abuses in this case were so huge that there’s literally no evidence against Knox if all the abuses are removed.

So any objective scholars of this case are now wholly entitled to erase everything that originated from the Knox criminal slander conviction, since we have official high-quality confirmation of what we all knew already: that Knox was disgracefully railroaded into a coerced false confession/accusation on that fateful night of 5th/6th November, by a corrupt law-breaking police and PM who knew exactly what they were doing that night.


Again, this is just by way of supplying correct background, and to put right some teeeeeeeeeeeeny-weeeeeeeeeeny bits of misinformation & misdirection
'Humiliated? That is a term much used by the DAILY EXPRESS. You'll be talking about 'fury' next.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:29 PM   #263
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Just to be clear (in advance of the next near-inevitable hair-splitting and goalpost-shifting exercises):

The effect of the Marasca SC verdict was to legally obliterate every piece of judicial argument, judicial verdict and judicial reasoning from all of the lower courts. Those things no longer exist, and trying to rely on any of them to “support” an opinion is both incorrect and irrelevant.

However…… all of the evidence and testimony entered into every lower court trial still stands.

So, for example, take the alleged earwitness testimony of Capezzali. Her testimony to the Massei court still exists legally today, as does her direct and cross. But the Massei court’s assessment of her testimony, and the court’s use of that assessment as part of formulating its verdict and MR, both [exist as evidence of the court's (mis)behavior] but no longer exist [and have no effect] in law.
LondonJohn, I took the liberty of doing some hair-splitting on your post.
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 30th November 2022, 04:30 PM   #264
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
"As per Masi-Martuscelli - Favi"!?

Aren't you the one who dismissed findings like the one Boninsegna made, you using grounds that Boninsegna had not heard any of the primary evidence?

Yet you do it for "Masi-Martuscelli - Favi", who similarly heard none of the primary evidence? You're at least consistent in inconsistently applying your reasonings.

Once again, please pick a lane.

Could there not be another reason why Masi-Martuscelli - Favi wrote what they wrote? That they wanted to save Italy judicial embarrassment? IIRC Masi-Martuscelli - Favi's decision is now in front of the ECHR. Perhaps we should see how that one comes out before quoting it with iron-clad certainty.
Yes, indeed. It even gives the page number it is citing from:

Quote:
On the other hand, given the indisputable presence of Knox in that house, it is difficult to believe he wasn't there with her” (Page 49 of the decision)

Please pay attention.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:37 PM   #265
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I note that you're still not saying anything about misquoting the British girls, for what they said at trial. You're simply ignoring that you've been proven wrong - by none other than Mignini-friendly author John Follain.

Please at least deal with it before moving on. Do you agree with Follain that two of the British girls who testified said that they wanted to be careful, that what they observed about Knox's weird behaviour, was not to be seen as them accusing her of murder? Do you agree with Follain in reporting that?

Or are you doubling down on your slander about 'bullying behaviour' which you further claimed had been taken from the British girls' testimony.
The phrase not wanting to accuse Knox was something written by the author of one of the trial books.

The purpose of the British friends of Mez was to describe verbatim their own experience of the matter in their own words. When giving witness testimony you need to be factual and objective and not ascribe motive to the person you are referring to. All of the witnesses will have been told to not project feelings and thoughts on to others. In other words, 'show, not tell'. You should not - for example - say, 'Mr. X was really nervous when I confronted him'. The correct format is, 'When I confronted Mr X, I noticed profuse perspiration broke out on his forehead and he began to tremble noticeably.'

The British witnesses had no knowledge of how the murder happened nor even who was responsible. It is not their job to accuse. That is the duty of the prosecutor.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:37 PM   #266
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A legal document cannot cloak a criminal act. It is automatically null and void.

For example, say I am a high up judge and you offer me €2m euros to fix a verdict and I carry it out accordingly. That contract you had with me is legally null and void because no individual can over rank the law of the State. So were it to be discovered the verdict was a result of bribery and corruption then I am afraid it would be nullified.
So you admit to not having support in an Italian law for your false statement, which is a fabrication you either created or obtained from some unreliable source.
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 30th November 2022, 04:38 PM   #267
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yes, indeed. It even gives the page number it is citing from:

Please pay attention.
So, unlike with Boninsegna, you now allow a court who did not hear the facts, to opine about them.

Pick a lane.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:41 PM   #268
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,771
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
So you admit to not having support in an Italian law for your false statement, which is a fabrication you either created or obtained from some unreliable source.
Ask the Mafia. Ask any of them, whose law has the upper hand at the end of the day?
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 04:42 PM   #269
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are quite wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the fact that post-Marasca-Bruno, the facts found from earlier courts were used against Sollecito, per Martuscelli, Masi.
Nope. What we have here is another example of why Italy paid more for human rights violations, found by the ECHR, in awards for Just Satisfaction than any other current member of the Council of Europe.

I'll repeat the text of an earlier post:

For those who might believe that Italy does not suffer from significant human rights violations or that it ignores ECHR judgments, it's informative to compare Italy's payments for Just Satisfaction to those of the other CoE states.

For the period 2012 - 2022, Italy has paid much more in Just Satisfaction awards than any other Council of Europe state with the exception of Russia, which withdrew from the CoE in 2022. Here are the amounts, in Euros, for some states of interest, including four other western European democracies.

Russia: 2,054,152,582 EUR
Italy: 292,600,154 EUR
Turkey: 179,000,682 EUR

UK: 2,850,939 EUR
France: 21,902,411 EUR
Spain: 1,710,648 EUR
Germany: 2,082,479 EUR

Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/italy
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 30th November 2022, 05:01 PM   #270
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,268
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Watch this space.
Why? Are you suggesting there will be evidence forthcoming that the Supreme Court of Italy was bribed to overturn the Nencini verdict and acquit Knox and Sollecito? You must have a really low opinion of the Italian judicial system. Does your low opinion apply to all things Italian?

Would you be willing to place a wager on your prediction. How much money are you willing to bet on it? Name your amount and a reasonable time frame for the evidence to appear.
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 30th November 2022, 05:02 PM   #271
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,268
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ask the Mafia. Ask any of them, whose law has the upper hand at the end of the day?
Are you suggesting that the Mafia controls the legal system in Italy? Is this more of your anti-Italian bias? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the Italian Republic.

Last edited by whoanellie; 30th November 2022 at 05:05 PM.
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 30th November 2022, 05:09 PM   #272
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ask the Mafia. Ask any of them, whose law has the upper hand at the end of the day?
I don't know any Mafia members, so I'll assume your first sentence and introductory clause for your second sentence are rhetorical.

However, even in cases involving the Mafia, ECHR case law overrides errors or misconduct in Italian law or judicial practice.

For an example, see Contrada v. Italy (No. 3), which found Italy had violated Contrada's rights under Convention Article 7.

Contrada was a police officer who provided a Mafia-type organization with information on police activities planned against it. However, there was no Italian law against this practice at the relevant time. Contrada was convicted of the acts based on a later legal definition and sentenced to prison.

Based on the ECHR judgment of a violation by Italy of Convention Article 7, the CSC annulled Contrada's conviction in accordance with CPP Article 673 (a conviction must be revoked if the offense was abolished by law or was based on an unconstitutional law).

So at the end of the day, it is the ECHR's final judgment that Italy follows.

Sources:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153771

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-28312

Last edited by Numbers; 30th November 2022 at 05:26 PM.
Numbers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2022, 05:21 PM   #273
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are quite wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the fact that post-Marasca-Bruno, the facts found from earlier courts were used against Sollecito, per Martuscelli, Masi.

*sigh*

Post-Marasca, yes. But pre- the ECHR adjudication.

But of course for as long as Italy continues dragging its feet over complying with the ECHR directed remedy - which, in practice, will necessitate Italy quashing Knox’s criminal slander verdict and acquitting her - Italian courts still have to comply with the SC-signed-off facts found in that Knox conviction.

However, for any educated/intelligent/objective observer, we now know that the Knox criminal slander convictions - and the courts’ “reasoning” behind it - are a totally worthless crock of ****. We can therefore safely discount in their entirety all references & reconciliations incorporated by other courts (eg Marasca) and throw them out of those other courts’ own reasonings.
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 30th November 2022, 05:27 PM   #274
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yes, indeed. It even gives the page number it is citing from:




Please pay attention.

As I told you already: since this is clearly a judicial fact that’s been imported and incorporated from the finalised MR of Knox’s criminal slander conviction….

….and since the ECHR has now ripped apart the extraordinary malpractice and unlawfulness upon which that conviction was entirely based….

….sane people are now entitled to disregard - in their entirety - all references to/reconciliations with that criminal slander conviction. Including, for example, the one you list above.


Please pay attention.
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 30th November 2022, 05:31 PM   #275
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
First of all, this is a section of a forum on the topic of Trials and Errors. If you do not wish to discuss such a thing then you are not obliged to even read it, so stop trying to censor discussion of this unresolved case.

First of all, my wondering why you brought up JK and that particular quote is not trying to 'censor' the discussion as I suspect you do know. It had zero to do with what we were actually discussing. Please stop making false accusations.
I suspect you're just miffed that it opened the door to a place you didn't want to go.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The victim was murdered nearby the 'closet'. Nobody knew this until the forensic guys went in much later.
As I said, Knox never said WHERE Meredith was actually killed so your supposed point is no point at all despite your repeated attempts to confuse the two.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Secondly, Knox was nowhere near the door when it was forced open, so her claim to be 'first to find the body' is curious, as she and Sollecito hung well back.
No, the fact she said she found the body is not curious at all since she was the one who started the discovery of the body. She is the one who alerted Raffaele that something wasn't right and took him to the cottage only to find the broken window. That initiated the call to 112 and to Filomena which resulted in Luca knocking down the door. That is true whether she actually saw the body or not.

RS and AK didn't hang 'well back' at all but I'm not surprised in the least at the attempted spin and insinuation. Six people were all gathered by MK's door in an area about less than 10 ft. (3.3 m) by 4.9 ft (1.45 m). SOMEONE had to be at the backend but you have to attach an ulterior motive to that. If they'd been at the front and able to look into the room, you'd post "Reliving the moment perchance...?"


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The fact she knew of the method of killing, the slow death and where exactly the murder happened is a perfectly reasonable area of investigation.
Oh, dear. Back to repeating lies... calling Altieri a liar, adding in your own "slow death" bit, and that Knox knew "where exactly the murder happened". Did Kercher die IN the closet?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was a deposition. Why shouldn't Mez' friends be a witness as to the events leading up to it and its immediate afterrmath?
No, it was not. My cited quote was TESTIMONY RB gave during the Massei trial and my following statement was in direct reference to that . Pay attention.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Here is the actual transcript and as under oath.
From the deposition, not testimony in front of a judges and jury. See if you can figure out why I specifically said:

Quote:
This kind of comment should never be allowed in court because it is a personal and very subjective opinion that may or may not be an accurate depiction of how the defendant felt and it can influence a jury. It is not evidence.
Do they have judges and juries at depositions?


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop trying to normalise a vicious murder by claiming that Mez' friends were the ones in the wrong for being 'negative and super critical'.
Stop lying and making crap up.


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 30th November 2022, 05:54 PM   #276
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,590
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As I said, Knox never said WHERE Meredith was actually killed so your supposed point is no point at all despite your repeated attempts to confuse the two.




No, the fact she said she found the body is not curious at all since she was the one who started the discovery of the body. She is the one who alerted Raffaele that something wasn't right and took him to the cottage only to find the broken window. That initiated the call to 112 and to Filomena which resulted in Luca knocking down the door. That is true whether she actually saw the body or not.

RS and AK didn't hang 'well back' at all but I'm not surprised in the least at the attempted spin and insinuation. Six people were all gathered by MK's door in an area about less than 10 ft. (3.3 m) by 4.9 ft (1.45 m). SOMEONE had to be at the backend but you have to attach an ulterior motive to that. If they'd been at the front and able to look into the room, you'd post "Reliving the moment perchance...?"

<snip>

Oh, dear. Back to repeating lies... calling Altieri a liar, adding in your own "slow death" bit, and that Knox knew "where exactly the murder happened". Did Kercher die IN the closet?

One other point here is to do with the definition of the terms “Meredith was killed” (and similar) and “where the murder happened”.

Because - as I mentioned a few posts previously - while the evidence shows that the attacker (Guede) stabbed Kercher in the neck while Kercher was on all fours directly in front of the wardrobe/closet….. the evidence also shows that the attacker (Guede) then moved/dragged Kercher’s body round almost immediately to the position in which it was found the following day. And Kercher survived the movement of her body, ultimately dying in the position in which she was discovered.

So, with that in mind, it’s incorrect to say that Kercher “was killed” in front of the wardrobe/closet. The whole crime (carried out by Guede alone) was a whole continuous chain of acts, beginning with (almost certainly) a verbal confrontation, followed by a physical confrontation (and evidence suggests that this may have occurred both near to Kercher’s bedroom door, and on/around her bed. The restraint and the stab wounds to the neck took place in front of the wardrobe/closet, then her body was immediately pulled round and away from the wardrobe/closet, to a position where the perimortem sexual assault took place (by Guede) and where Kercher eventually bled out and died.

The most that any sincere and intelligent observer can therefore state is that Kercher was fatally stabbed in front of her wardrobe/closet. But the evidence shows conclusively that, in effect, the whole of Kercher’s bedroom must be considered as the place of her murder.
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 30th November 2022, 06:15 PM   #277
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

There is no way ordinary person Luca Altieri who happened to arrive at the scene because he gave Filomena a lift would have been informed by the police or anybody else the method and cause of death. He is a liar.
Oh, my. Read what Altieri said again...this time very slowly so you can comprehend what he actually said:
Quote:
Quote:
Altieri: Yes, yes, yes, after a while, you know, after the Red Cross car arrived, the Scientific Police and the Carabinieri arrived, all of them, after a while one of the two medics, I believe, the driver of the Red Cross, it wasn’t an ambulance, he came out of the crime scene, let’s say, from inside the house, speaking to one of the Carabinieri that was there outside and he described a bit about what had happened, saying… referring to the both the fact the her throat had been cut and that she had also fought back, let’s say, and from this I understood this thing.
I'll break it down for you:

1. Altieri didn't say the police or the medic told HIM what he'd seen.
2. Altieri overheard the medic talking to the officer.

Clear now?

>Irrelevent word salad unfounded in any fact snipped<


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please refrain from trying to normalise totally aberrant behaviour. What kind of person criticises detectives for finding such outrageous behaviour in the aftermath of a truly disgusting murder suspicious?
Please refrain from twisting and misrepresenting what I say to further your own agenda. Nobody believes these twisted and false accusations of yours. Gaslight yourself all you want, but don't pull that crap on me.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
BTW I don't know where you get your totally revised erroneous information from but Knox definitely DID say the following as per Butterworth's sworn testimony.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never denied Knox said that or something similar. THIS is what I said:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nor that she had had 'her throat slit' '******* bled to death' slowly.
Again, why do you need to lie about what is written in court documents? Knox never said she '******* bled to death' slowly."That you felt the need to add your own made up 'slowly' to that is very revealing.
This is what RB actually said: "And then Amanda said: "what the **** do you think? She bled out."

So, Vixen, please point out exactly where in YOUR quote from RB, does she use the word "slowly" or "slow"? Go on, we'll wait.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So once again the Knox advocates trying to rewrite history. Quelle surprise!
AS shown above, it's YOU, not me, trying to rewrite history by adding your OWN word to what RB said.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
NB Please do something about your formatting. Why should I have to tidy up after you?
Please do something about your lying. Why should I have to keep disproving them?
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 30th November 2022, 06:23 PM   #278
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I fail to see what is suspicious about someone, distressed at their friend being horribly murdered, snapping back at another who says they hope she didn't suffer, when that's pretty obviously not the case and no comfort whatsoever. I mean, what do you suppose is the right thing to say in such circumstances? Thank you for your hopeless but well-meaning platitude?

It seems to me you could only hold that against someone if you came to it absolutely determined to find the most biased and uttery negative interpretation you possibly could.
BINGO! Knox could find the cure for cancer and certain PGP would remark on it by saying "Attention w****!"
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 30th November 2022, 06:28 PM   #279
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The phrase not wanting to accuse Knox was something written by the author of one of the trial books.
Yes.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The British witnesses had no knowledge of how the murder happened nor even who was responsible. It is not their job to accuse. That is the duty of the prosecutor.
Yes. Yet they went above and beyond telling the court that they did not want to have their testimony seem like they were accusing Knox.

Yet, once again, you have an opportunity to disavow what you claimed earlier in this thread. You claimed that the slanderous things you accused Knox of (bullying, laughing etc.) were not your words. You said you were only quoting the English girls testimony.

I will repeat this until you address why you misspoke like that.
__________________
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 30th November 2022, 06:47 PM   #280
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,760
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the final ruling is as a result of corruption and bribery, then it will automatically ipso facto be found null and void.
Sure, you just cling to that after almost 7 years. Desperation springs eternal.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:07 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.