Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Re: Nicole "Nyki" Kish Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:16 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Jewel wrote:There was no degree of skepticism whatsoever in that affirmation. Rubber stamp.


One thing which is obvious is that none of the judges seem to have even a passing understanding on just how complex crowd dynamics is.
People end up getting trampled in crowds and honestly nobody knows who was involved in the trampling.

It's not just Nordheimer's reasons for judgement. I think he actually does a fairly decent job describing the chaos, when taking the witness statements (in court) at face value for what they admit they know - but more importantly what they admit to not knowing.

It's when other people's testimony gets factored in. Who followed who? Who fought with who? Who rode up on a bike? How'd Watts both stay with Fresh, but was seen with Kish later on the other side of the trolley? Putting it all together defies putting it all together.

Perhaps the activities and verbal combatants at the ATM can be reconstructed with some general sense of who's what. One thing is for certain - it wasn't Nyki "panhandling". Perhaps the activities of the south-side fight can be reconstructed with a slightly less general sense of who is what. Hammond probably did sustain superficial back-wounds at that fight; whoever welded the knife against him obviously used reasonable force, and probably saved Fresh's life.

But from then on, IMO, all bets are off.

    Nordheimer in his judgement wrote:In the end, it is a fact from which an irresistible inference flows that Ms. Kish was the female in the second fight.

"The female?" The trolley driver affirmed under oath that two women went in front of him from south to north. But when did THAT happen? Stopford (or Paget) said they saw a woman on the southside with a knife, and could not I.D. her as Nyki.

But the point is that after the beat-down on Fresh by Hammond, and the life-saving action of an unknown woman the whole scene deteriorates.

    Nordheimer in his judgement wrote:In addition to those considerations is the fact that the blood of Ross Hammond and the blood of Nicole Kish were found mixed together at the hinge of the knife, that is, where the blade meets the handle. It is again an irresistible inference from that fact that the same knife caused the wounds to both. Still further is the fact that the only other knife, that we know was present at any time in the course of these events, belonged to Douglas Fresh. Not only was Mr. Fresh still in possession of that knife when he was arrested, it was tested for blood and none was found. In addition, as I have already found, Mr. Fresh was not involved in the second fight.

How on earth does Nordheimer know there were only two knives, even if one stayed with Fresh at all times? It would seem an impossibility to say this for sure.

This was not church on a Sunday morning. It was a street melee with all sorts of "types" of people milling around - transient hippies, jocks, probably a few panhandlers.... and the total record shows how anyone's ability to sort out what was what deteriorated as the chaos developed.

What makes these two "irresistible inferences" particularly disgusting is that a woman was sentenced to life in prison on them. It is clear that Nordheimer does not have to claim these irresistible inferences "beyond a reasonable doubt", because that standard belongs only to the larger, total context. But do these irresistable inferences pass the "on the balance of probabilities" test? Really? In a street melee?

It does not even pass the smell test.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nicole "Nyki" Kish Public Discussion Forum

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:00 pm

leonmyerson wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:As I wrote in my previous post, I am perfectly willing to help. I am not sure what new analysis I can bring however. The only think I can bring is that the case seems perfectly resolved to the crown prosecutor I discussed the issue with. The leaps of logic seemed to be perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps you can answer my question. . . .Can she get out in fourteen years or is she stuck by the innocent prisoner's dilemma? I am not suggesting that we give up fighting but just be some light at the end of teh tunnel?


The prisoner's dilemma is in full force, unfortunately. The law flat out demands that the innocent lie to protect it sacred reputation. I've come to think that requiring prisoners to admit guilt to get released is something that should be banned on the level of international human rights treaties. But then, that just might interfere with totalitarian re-education camps, which the practice so thoroughly resembles.


The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma are different issues

Gabe Tan reported a British conference in 2011, "the dilemma of maintaining innocence", concluded "Denial is not a valid measure of risk. In fact, research has shown that prisoners who openly admit to their crimes have the highest risk of re-offending."[21]

In 2011, Dr Michael Naughton suggested the focus on new evidence by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, rather than an examination of serious problems with evidence at original trials, meant in many cases “that the dangerous criminals who committed these crimes remain at liberty with the potential to commit further serious crimes.”[22]

Robert A. Forde cited two studies at the conference. One, a ten-year study of 180 sex offenders by Harkins, Beech and Goodwill found prisoners who claimed to be innocent were the least likely to be re-convicted, and that those who 'admitted everything', claiming to be guilty, were most likely to re-offend. He also told the conference research by Hanson et al. in 2002, the denial by the prisoner of their offences had no bearing on their likelihood of re-offending, however they are perceived by the parole officers as more likely to re-offend because of their denials.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nicole "Nyki" Kish Public Discussion Forum

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:02 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Jewel wrote:There was no degree of skepticism whatsoever in that affirmation. Rubber stamp.


One thing which is obvious is that none of the judges seem to have even a passing understanding on just how complex crowd dynamics is.
People end up getting trampled in crowds and honestly nobody knows who was involved in the trampling.

It's not just Nordheimer's reasons for judgement. I think he actually does a fairly decent job describing the chaos, when taking the witness statements (in court) at face value for what they admit they know - but more importantly what they admit to not knowing.

It's when other people's testimony gets factored in. Who followed who? Who fought with who? Who rode up on a bike? How'd Watts both stay with Fresh, but was seen with Kish later on the other side of the trolley? Putting it all together defies putting it all together.

Perhaps the activities and verbal combatants at the ATM can be reconstructed with some general sense of who's what. One thing is for certain - it wasn't Nyki "panhandling". Perhaps the activities of the south-side fight can be reconstructed with a slightly less general sense of who is what. Hammond probably did sustain superficial back-wounds at that fight; whoever welded the knife against him obviously used reasonable force, and probably saved Fresh's life.

But from then on, IMO, all bets are off.

    Nordheimer in his judgement wrote:In the end, it is a fact from which an irresistible inference flows that Ms. Kish was the female in the second fight.

"The female?" The trolley driver affirmed under oath that two women went in front of him from south to north. But when did THAT happen? Stopford (or Paget) said they saw a woman on the southside with a knife, and could not I.D. her as Nyki.

But the point is that after the beat-down on Fresh by Hammond, and the life-saving action of an unknown woman the whole scene deteriorates.

    Nordheimer in his judgement wrote:In addition to those considerations is the fact that the blood of Ross Hammond and the blood of Nicole Kish were found mixed together at the hinge of the knife, that is, where the blade meets the handle. It is again an irresistible inference from that fact that the same knife caused the wounds to both. Still further is the fact that the only other knife, that we know was present at any time in the course of these events, belonged to Douglas Fresh. Not only was Mr. Fresh still in possession of that knife when he was arrested, it was tested for blood and none was found. In addition, as I have already found, Mr. Fresh was not involved in the second fight.

How on earth does Nordheimer know there were only two knives, even if one stayed with Fresh at all times? It would seem an impossibility to say this for sure.

This was not church on a Sunday morning. It was a street melee with all sorts of "types" of people milling around - transient hippies, jocks, probably a few panhandlers.... and the total record shows how anyone's ability to sort out what was what deteriorated as the chaos developed.

What makes these two "irresistible inferences" particularly disgusting is that a woman was sentenced to life in prison on them. It is clear that Nordheimer does not have to claim these irresistible inferences "beyond a reasonable doubt", because that standard belongs only to the larger, total context. But do these irresistable inferences pass the "on the balance of probabilities" test? Really? In a street melee?

It does not even pass the smell test.


I know this is a short response for a long post but how many "females" were involved? If if we assume that it was male top heavy, that does not mean that there were not a number of females.
In this case, she would have had a much better chance in a jury trial and maybe get somebody who had seen the chaos of a sports stadium.
One item which boths me is the crow prosecutor I discussed the issue with seemed to see no problems.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nicole "Nyki" Kish Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:48 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I know this is a short response for a long post but how many "females" were involved? If if we assume that it was male top heavy, that does not mean that there were not a number of females.
In this case, she would have had a much better chance in a jury trial and maybe get somebody who had seen the chaos of a sports stadium.
One item which boths me is the crow prosecutor I discussed the issue with seemed to see no problems.

I'm doing this from memory, but am fairly sure it's right.... I think the short answer to your question is: at least two.

At the least, there are two females. At least two at the south fight, and it is probably (IMO) Faith Watts who saves Doug Fresh's life, but inflicting non-lethal wounds on to Hammond. It was her knife. Fresh was her boyfriend. The overall description of the "woman with the knife" doesn't really match Nyki. In about the only thing Watts can remember from that night is that Hammond took the knife off of her. For my money, probably in self-defence (albeit that it stopped the beat-down on Fresh.)

Nordheimer, though, uses the very confused an chaotic witness of Stopford and Paget, who were on the trolley, and saw the first fight develop (the one that led to the beatdown of Fresh).

Stopford said one of the females seemed to be more involved than the other in interceding. This female wore baggy pants. Stopford could not describe the other. When the "more involved woman" put the knife between her teeth, Stopford looked away.

Then Stopford says she say the "more involved woman", the one with the baggy pants, on the north side. At this point she sees another female (on the northside) take off her shirt and wrap the hand of the woman who had had the knife.

Stopford sees no transition from south to north of any of the women. Incredibly, Nordheimer has this sentence in his "reasons" which actually cast doubt on the whole of Stopford's recollection:

    Nordheimer wrote:Ms. Stopford also thought that the female who took off her shirt was the same female who had been with the other female in the fight but she admits that she is not sure of that. She also admits that she might be interchanging the two females in terms of which one had the cut arm.

If Nordheimer uses Stopford to build his "irresistible inference", it is a flawed inference right there, right then. It's an inference of sand. And so far this is just Nordheimers own reasoning with the very simplified set of fights that are not the mark of either:

    1) what most of the witnesses saw that night - they saw a melee where it was hard to keep track of who was where
    2) typical of a street melee!

Paget sees only ONE female come to the aid of Fresh in the southside fight, and the fight ended shortly after she arrived. (Again, who could this have been except for Faith Watts? She was Fresh's girlfriend, she owned the murder weapon, and she eventually said one of her few memories of the evening was that Hammond was the one who disarmed her.)

Paget says he only saw the knife on two occasions, one of which was when Hammond had it at the end of the north fight. However, he could not (at trial) be sure when in the sequence of events he saw the knife in the hand of a woman, someone he could not identify. He too could not identify the female, but he was "fairly certain" it was the woman who stopped the beatdown on Fresh.

I know I am not getting at the "number of females" present at any of the events, but Nordheimer keeps it minimalist. This includes Mr. Park's testimony - however, incredibly Mr Park's testimony is of an unknown make who shows Park that he'd been wounded by lift his shirt and showing Park.

It is Woosen Hallimerian, the taxi driver, who Nordheimer uses to fix the number of combatants at the north fight - one woman and four men. Hallimerian told the cops on site the woman was wearing a dress, but at trial said she was wearing pants. Hallimerian was the driver of the taxi which effected Hammond's escape.

Mr. Bordignon saw the second fight and could not remember if there were females there. Raymond To said the same thing.

My view is that even in Nordheimer's spartan account of the events, he has described nothing but confusion - at both fights. But then he says this:

    Norheimer wrote:recognizing that there are risks associated with eyewitness identification cannot at the same time paralyze triers of fact from reaching conclusions based on such evidence when the trier finds it reliable. In other words, we must not become so fearful of the problems associated with the evidence of eyewitnesses that we effectively abandon that evidence or refuse to act on it.

In other words, "Damn it all anyways, I'm going to solve this regardless!!!"

It is principally Mr. Bordignon's testimony that Nordheimer uses to say that it was Faith Watts who stayed behind to tend to Fresh, while the other woman chased Hammond and joined in with Wooley, and an unidentified male, in attack.

It is at this point that one brings in all the non-trial, but similarly sworn depositions. One interesting one is the trolley driver himself, with perhaps the best view of all. He said two women went from south to north. Others describe a chaotic scene that suggests no clear boundary between the two fights.

And on and on it goes. It is just hard to believe that Nordheimer would send someone to prison on the basis of some sort of misplaced pride that he could sort out eyewitness testimony - when he himself admits how difficult it is to do exactly that!

But the short answer to your question, Desert Fox, is: at least two. However, even those two are not really restricted in how many times they went from south to north and perhaps back....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nicole "Nyki" Kish Public Discussion Forum

Postby leonmyerson » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:10 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
leonmyerson wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:As I wrote in my previous post, I am perfectly willing to help. I am not sure what new analysis I can bring however. The only think I can bring is that the case seems perfectly resolved to the crown prosecutor I discussed the issue with. The leaps of logic seemed to be perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps you can answer my question. . . .Can she get out in fourteen years or is she stuck by the innocent prisoner's dilemma? I am not suggesting that we give up fighting but just be some light at the end of teh tunnel?


The prisoner's dilemma is in full force, unfortunately. The law flat out demands that the innocent lie to protect it sacred reputation. I've come to think that requiring prisoners to admit guilt to get released is something that should be banned on the level of international human rights treaties. But then, that just might interfere with totalitarian re-education camps, which the practice so thoroughly resembles.


The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma are different issues

Gabe Tan reported a British conference in 2011, "the dilemma of maintaining innocence", concluded "Denial is not a valid measure of risk. In fact, research has shown that prisoners who openly admit to their crimes have the highest risk of re-offending."[21]

In 2011, Dr Michael Naughton suggested the focus on new evidence by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, rather than an examination of serious problems with evidence at original trials, meant in many cases “that the dangerous criminals who committed these crimes remain at liberty with the potential to commit further serious crimes.”[22]

Robert A. Forde cited two studies at the conference. One, a ten-year study of 180 sex offenders by Harkins, Beech and Goodwill found prisoners who claimed to be innocent were the least likely to be re-convicted, and that those who 'admitted everything', claiming to be guilty, were most likely to re-offend. He also told the conference research by Hanson et al. in 2002, the denial by the prisoner of their offences had no bearing on their likelihood of re-offending, however they are perceived by the parole officers as more likely to re-offend because of their denials.


The most pernicious type of "cold case" is the one that stems from a wrongful conviction. The authorities are content that they've ended the matter, so no one's looking any further. Meanwhile the guilty is free to strike again, and may even be enjoying a heightened sense of invulnerability from the outcome. Law and order devotees should seriously think about the prospect of such fortunate criminals literally laughing at the law.

Those responsible for the deliberate wrongful convictions should really consider how the tide has started to turn thanks to advances in forensic science and the rise of Internet based advocacy. What they get away with today might not stand in 5 years, 10 years or more, and they're committed to having their falsehoods stand for decades. Will they? No, and they're being extremely short=sighted if they think otherwise.

Then there's always the possibility of a confession from the real perpetrator. This is what happened in the infamous Central Park jogger case. Five teenage boys spent years in jail from that media firestorm case due to improperly obtained and completely false "confessions". Then the real rapist, already doing life for another crime, and therefore having nothing to lose, confessed that he and he alone was responsible. None of the boys had left their DNA on the victim, his was all over her.

The idea that those who maintain innocence are less likely to be repeat offenders sounds like statistical evidence that at least some of this group really are innocent. I'm wondering if the simple difference in the repeat offense percentage between the "maintain innocence" and the "admit guilt" groups could be showing us the actual percentage of wrongful convictions.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby roteoctober » Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:10 am

In the aftermath of Knox and Sollecito's definitive acquittal and of Debra Milke's exhoneration, I had to choose a featured case to deal with in depth.

I chose Nyki's case because it presents rulings with a motivation report of sorts and that's the type of trials I'm most accustomed to.

I know that after the rejection of her appeal, Nyki's situation looks bleak, but I hope we can try and arise international awareness about her predicaments and her innocence.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:16 pm

McGirr wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
McGirr wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:I assume there is something like case law which says the mere act of transporting the knife which causes the death to the scene of the death satisfies the intent to cause bodily harm likely to cause the death with recklessness.



No the mere act of transporting knife is not sufficient. You must belief that it will be used to kill the person.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl ... ss-1.46347

Culpable homicide is used in the criminal code of Canada and is one of only a handful of countries that use it. It is also used in manslaughter charges where there is negligence.

With all due respect, McGirr, I am simply cutting and pasting from Canada's criminal code. The other part about the mere act of transporting the knife is mentioned in Nordheimer's ruling, and technically he is correct.

In Canada, to be convicted of 2nd degree murder, it does not have to be proven that the transporter had the "belief" that it was going to be used in a murder. All that is required is the reasonable assumption that it COULD be used in a wreckless manner, in a manner which could reasonably be assumed to cause death.

I don't know about anywhere else. But Nordheimer is correct.

The problem with Nordheimer is that he reduces a confusing street melee to only (essentially) four combatants in his "reason for judgement", and rules out three of them as transporters of the knife. My view is that he does not describe the reality of that street melee....


Hi Bill,
There is also the account of Officer Scott who heard Mr Hammand say as to where knife came from "I wrestled it from his hand's''. The Judge dismisses this evidence. There is alot here to read and discuss but I just want to clear something with you.


Here are the excerpts from the Nordheimer verdict. It is obvious to me that in such a scenario the person would have more than a reasonable belief that the knife would be used to stab someone. However passing the knife or the mere act of passing the knife is not sufficient to form the mens rea, The judge finds that Kish had the state of mind required to intentionally cause Ross Hammond bodily harm ( I assume GBH) that she knew likely to kill him. That finding is very important to what your saying because without it the mere passing of the knife would not make her an accessory.

[109] Then, likely in an effort to get away, Mr. Hammond went to the north side of Queen Street where, instead of disengaging from the events, he became engaged in a second fight that involved the same female who had the knife and two other men, one of whom was Jeremy Wooley. During the course of this second fight, Mr. Hammond was stabbed four times in the chest, one of which wounds ultimately caused his death. Those wounds had to have been caused by the female either directly or indirectly by her passing the knife to one of the two males who then stabbed Mr. Hammond


[137] I would also note that, even if that conclusion is in error, the only other possible explanation for the wounds to Mr. Hammond is that Ms. Kish, having brought the knife to the second fight, then passed it to one of the males who were involved in the fight and that he then inflicted the stab wounds. In that scenario, Ms. Kish would have aided that act and be liable as a party to the offence.

[142] For all of these reasons, therefore, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Nicole Kish stabbed Ross Hammond and thus caused his death, that she caused his death unlawfully and that, when she stabbed Ross Hammond, and notwithstanding the earlier insults and other events, Nicole Kish had the state of mind required to intentionally cause Ross Hammond bodily harm that she knew was likely to kill him and was reckless whether Ross Hammond died or not. Nicole Kish thereby committed second degree murder.


However no one saw her pass the knife, and no one saw who stabbed Hammond and it is just an assumption that she did and not reasonable to make inferences sufficient to form murder. The circumstances are so heated that one could almost make that inference generally to anyone that passed a knife and yet that is what the Judge is happy to convict Kish on. I need read more to see if there is evidence Kish stabbed at Hammonds back in the first fight on the southside, as this would make a difference.

Judges love to use the word notwithstanding, such a play with words. However it goes to show that if Kish wasn't on the bike it would change her perceived role significantly.

And the words I love using are, "Unless I am completely mistaken....."

Unless I am completely mistaken, the simply act of taking the knife through the otherwise impermeable membrane between the first and second fight, from south to north, makes the transporter guilty of second-degree murder - period. Whether the knife was passed or not. Nordheimer then feels he's on safe ground to further say things about the passing of the knife, if not the actual act of stabbing.

Acc. to Nordheimer no one needs to see Kish either stab or pass the knife. She is convictable on that charge solely on his irresistible inference that she left Watts and Fresh on the south side, with the knife, to pursue Hammond. The state of mind is inferred from leaving the south-side fight to pursue Hammond - with the obvious intent on doing him reckless harm.

Citing the beating Doug Fresh took on the south side merely becomes a motive for the recklessness.

I don't agree with Norheimer's construction of events, with that impermeable membrane between south/north, through which only Kish and Hammond passed, to the exclusion of all others. That they are two different genders is a factor in Nordheimer's irresistible inference.

Ok - now for demolishing Nordheimer. At some point Faith Watts ends up on the north side, seen tending to Kish. When did Watts pass through that impenetrable membrane?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:17 pm

roteoctober wrote:In the aftermath of Knox and Sollecito's definitive acquittal and of Debra Milke's exhoneration, I had to choose a featured case to deal with in depth.

I chose Nyki's case because it presents rulings with a motivation report of sorts and that's the type of trials I'm most accustomed to.

I know that after the rejection of her appeal, Nyki's situation looks bleak, but I hope we can try and arise international awareness about her predicaments and her innocence.

Starting with a petition to the CBC's The Fifth Estate is a good start. This will not be allowed to pass un-shouted about.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:29 pm

roteoctober wrote:In the aftermath of Knox and Sollecito's definitive acquittal and of Debra Milke's exhoneration, I had to choose a featured case to deal with in depth.

I chose Nyki's case because it presents rulings with a motivation report of sorts and that's the type of trials I'm most accustomed to.

I know that after the rejection of her appeal, Nyki's situation looks bleak, but I hope we can try and arise international awareness about her predicaments and her innocence.


I'm on the same page as you roteoctober. I'm taking it up because people I like and respect feel passionately about it, so I'm trying to immerse myself in it. Being new to it, I will likely want to cover ground that has already been covered six times before, so please be patient with me as I try to dig in.
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:52 pm

Bill Williams wrote:Starting with a petition to the CBC's The Fifth Estate is a good start. This will not be allowed to pass un-shouted about.


Bill,

I rooted around at the CBC "Fifth Estate" website, but couldn't find anything about Kish. Could you help a fella out with a link :-)
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Sarah » Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:58 pm

wald1900 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Starting with a petition to the CBC's The Fifth Estate is a good start. This will not be allowed to pass un-shouted about.


Bill,

I rooted around at the CBC "Fifth Estate" website, but couldn't find anything about Kish. Could you help a fella out with a link :-)


Here's the petition:

.@cbcfifth the fifth estate @CBC: Please investigate the wrongful conviction of Nyki Kish @FreeNykiNow @Change https://www.change.org/p/the-fifth-estate-cbc-please-investigate-the-wrongful-conviction-of-nicole-nyki-kish?recruiter=6589870&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-no_msg
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:50 am

Thanks Sarah.....I found the petition too, but Bill seemed to suggest that the Fifth Estate had done a show. That's what I'm looking for.
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby roteoctober » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:55 am

wald1900 wrote:
roteoctober wrote:In the aftermath of Knox and Sollecito's definitive acquittal and of Debra Milke's exhoneration, I had to choose a featured case to deal with in depth.

I chose Nyki's case because it presents rulings with a motivation report of sorts and that's the type of trials I'm most accustomed to.

I know that after the rejection of her appeal, Nyki's situation looks bleak, but I hope we can try and arise international awareness about her predicaments and her innocence.


I'm on the same page as you roteoctober. I'm taking it up because people I like and respect feel passionately about it, so I'm trying to immerse myself in it. Being new to it, I will likely want to cover ground that has already been covered six times before, so please be patient with me as I try to dig in.


I too wiil have to dig, Wald, a lot! :-)
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Sarah » Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:23 am

wald1900 wrote:Thanks Sarah.....I found the petition too, but Bill seemed to suggest that the Fifth Estate had done a show. That's what I'm looking for.


no, they haven't yet.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:25 am

I have a dear friend who lives in Kitchner, Ontario, which is very near the prison where Nyki is being held. If I recall correctly, although this friend's daughters didn't know Nyki, they are of the same age and hung out in many of the same places. This friend is a very kind, thoughtful person, yet after I'd pointed the story out to her and she'd had a chance to read about it a little, she shared with me that she struggled to feel any sense of investment in Nyki's cause. While she was willing to concede the possibility that Nyki had been railroaded and felt that if the court had singled her out because of her counterculture status that it was unfair, she nonetheless had difficulty warming up to Nyki's because of her participation in the melee where Hammond was killed. In short, she saw Nyki as an unsympathetic victim. I mention this story for two reasons. First, I thought it was an interesting (and perhaps, helpful) insight that might suggest (to the extent it hasn't been already) a weak spot to be addressed in any advocacy efforts. Second, for those of you who are so passionate about the case, is there something about her or her evident involvement in the melee that my friend is missing or is seeing wrongly?

Again, I'm the newby in the room, so be patient with me :-)
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:08 am

Sarah wrote:
wald1900 wrote:Thanks Sarah.....I found the petition too, but Bill seemed to suggest that the Fifth Estate had done a show. That's what I'm looking for.


no, they haven't yet.

Fifth Estate so far is not planning a show. That's what the petition is about, getting them to consider it. The stumbling block IIRC is that the institution refuses to let them do it, and the Fifth Estate is not pushing like they've done for other cases.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:25 am

wald1900 wrote:I have a dear friend who lives in Kitchner, Ontario, which is very near the prison where Nyki is being held. If I recall correctly, although this friend's daughters didn't know Nyki, they are of the same age and hung out in many of the same places. This friend is a very kind, thoughtful person, yet after I'd pointed the story out to her and she'd had a chance to read about it a little, she shared with me that she struggled to feel any sense of investment in Nyki's cause. While she was willing to concede the possibility that Nyki had been railroaded and felt that if the court had singled her out because of her counterculture status that it was unfair, she nonetheless had difficulty warming up to Nyki's because of her participation in the melee where Hammond was killed. In short, she saw Nyki as an unsympathetic victim. I mention this story for two reasons. First, I thought it was an interesting (and perhaps, helpful) insight that might suggest (to the extent it hasn't been already) a weak spot to be addressed in any advocacy efforts. Second, for those of you who are so passionate about the case, is there something about her or her evident involvement in the melee that my friend is missing or is seeing wrongly?

Again, I'm the newby in the room, so be patient with me :-)

I'm fairly sure the following thing I'm writing does not come out of any sense of "passion" for this case, but I find this friend's attitude troubling. (In fairness to your friend, I use similar reasoning for why, in essence, why I don't get involved in so many others.)

My initial reaction to not getting at all involved in the Amanda Knox case was essentially this. I figured they had DNA of the young lady, and besides hundreds of students go overseas every year and do stupid things. I had a buddy who woke up one morning in Mexico after a week-long binge and discovered the woman beside him was his wife!!!!! It took years to sort that out.

I mean this seriously - we all need an excuse not to peel back the onion. If I had not peeled back the onion in the Murder of Meredith case, I am sure the Italian Supreme Court would have still come to its senses on March 27, 2015. Yet increasingly the issue of citizen journalism (for good and bad!) is being referenced as having an influence on these things.

So..... back to the chase - Nyki participated in the melee. So she ends up being to sole person in the slammer for the outcome of that. There's only one layer of onion which needs pulling back to show how, on many levels, that is disturbing reasoning. The whole idea of a wrongfully convicted person being an "unsympathetic victim" reminds me of another author on another service who sees a version of "slut shaming" and internet bullying as being key to understanding the Knox/Sollecito case.

Nyki's involvement in the melee is relevant on the three issues which Judge Nordheimer says convicted her, and he's the convicting judge:

    1) if she took the knife from the south fight to the north fight, then she is equally convictable of second-degree murder, as if she'd stabbed Hammond herself
    2) if she'd been in possession of the knife at the north fight (while the "reckless harm" was well underway) and passed it to someone who'd done the stabbing, then she is equally convictable of second-degree murder, as if she'd stabbed Hammond herself.
    3) there was only one knife at the north side fight

The irresistible inference Nordheimer conjures up is that since it is only Nyki's and Hammond's blood on the knife, that Nyki at the very least must have done #1 or #2. Because of #3.

You see her conviction is not based on her solely being there at the melee. I'd suggest that Nyki's actions at BOTH fights were defensive - it was either her or Faith Watts who literally saved Doug Fresh's life at the south fight by inflicting non-life threatening knife wounds on to Hammond's back, and the evidence equally suggests that Nyki could have been wounded herself in an attempt to get someone off of Hammond at the north fight. That the same set of facts could equally suggest that Hammond was wounded fatally by a second knife, as yet unfound. Nordheimer did not prove "no second knife" even on the balance of probabilities, he only surmised it. Further that Nyki was wounded with Faith Watts' knife after Hammond himself took possession on it, and he "accidentally" slashed her in the melee.... then himself bled on the knife as he escaped.

I'd suggest that this is the same sort of and equal irresistible inference which can be drawn, at least equal to Nordheimer's. His notion that he's proven (either on the basis of it being likely that there was only one, or on the balance of probabilities there was only one) that there had to have been only one knife at that melee is the most ludicrous assumption of all. At a street fight? One knife? With Woolley and Hal Amero there? Sure, and there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

I'm a tad offended that mere "involvement" in a street melee not of one's making is insinuated to project some kind of character on to Nyki, which justifies an, "oh well, she was involved so I don't care that she is rotting in prison." as a result. Sorry. Anyone could have been picked at random out of that melee, and put in the slammer!!!! That's the way it looks from this seat.

There is no evidence in front of Nordheimer that Nyki was involved in the "reckless harm" part of the statute. None.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:56 am

wald1900 wrote:I have a dear friend who lives in Kitchner, Ontario, which is very near the prison where Nyki is being held. If I recall correctly, although this friend's daughters didn't know Nyki, they are of the same age and hung out in many of the same places. This friend is a very kind, thoughtful person, yet after I'd pointed the story out to her and she'd had a chance to read about it a little, she shared with me that she struggled to feel any sense of investment in Nyki's cause. While she was willing to concede the possibility that Nyki had been railroaded and felt that if the court had singled her out because of her counterculture status that it was unfair, she nonetheless had difficulty warming up to Nyki's because of her participation in the melee where Hammond was killed. In short, she saw Nyki as an unsympathetic victim. I mention this story for two reasons. First, I thought it was an interesting (and perhaps, helpful) insight that might suggest (to the extent it hasn't been already) a weak spot to be addressed in any advocacy efforts. Second, for those of you who are so passionate about the case, is there something about her or her evident involvement in the melee that my friend is missing or is seeing wrongly?

Again, I'm the newby in the room, so be patient with me :-)


That might be why the poster who claims to be a crown prosecutor claimed that this is not a case to be interested in. She was a member of the counter culture and is seen as trash. Really sad when I think of it that way.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:57 pm

Hold on there kiddos.....I was just asking a question. If I have asked it, if my friend (who I assure you is a better person than the vast majority of people you're likely to meet in this world) has asked it, then you can count on others asking it as well. If the best answer you've got is "I'm troubled you'd even ask that question", then piece of advice number one is to think about coming up with a better answer.
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:27 pm

wald1900 wrote:Hold on there kiddos.....I was just asking a question. If I have asked it, if my friend (who I assure you is a better person than the vast majority of people you're likely to meet in this world) has asked it, then you can count on others asking it as well. If the best answer you've got is "I'm troubled you'd even ask that question", then piece of advice number one is to think about coming up with a better answer.

That part, is the most troubling of all. It suggests - and correct me if I've got this totally wrong - that people from counter-cultures can't complain about being railroaded, because many people are immediately going to go there when hearing about the case!? Have I got that wrong?

I didn't mean to jump all over you, apologies if it comes across as that way.... but the sentiment was:

    she nonetheless had difficulty warming up to Nyki's (potential railroading because of her counterculture status) because of her participation in the melee where Hammond was killed. In short, she saw Nyki as an unsympathetic victim.

Does the person in question not see that as a problem?

This was sold in the media as the "panhandler murder". Despite the incident which started the melee..... the one thing Nyki Kish was not was a panhandler. This alone speaks to the niche it occupied in the public's mind, while Nordheimer was drawing up his "irresistible inferences", none of which relate to counter-culture status or panhandlers!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:56 pm

I'm sorry....I didn't say it because I didn't think it needed to be said; so for the record let me lay it out - everyone deserves justice, and no one should be denied justice because of who or what they are. The "troubling" reality is that marginalized people are most at risk precisely because the dominant culture holds them to be unworthy of the respect, dignity and regard for fundamental fairness to which "good people" naturally feel entitled. This explains why about 50% of the exonerees in the National Registry of Exonerations are black.

With this said, however, if Nyki was convicted precisely because she was deemed "unworthy" then it would seem to me that the reality on the ground is that it is an issue an advocacy team would want to tackle head on. Whether it is troubling or not, people will want to know why Nyki was on that street and what role she played in the melee before they commit themselves to outrage over the unfair treatment she's received. It sucks, but it's also true. Just a thought, but have you guys thought about making a virtue of vice and pushing advocacy for her precisely on the grounds that she was convicted for being "counterculture"...boldly embrace that aspect of her life.....give people new to the case a reason to overcome their natural indifference and to empathize with her and her plight.
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:58 pm

Sorry, I'm talking without being armed with a complete understanding of her case. As I said, I was just asking a question, but should probably shut up until I know more.
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:17 pm

Bill Williams wrote:That part, is the most troubling of all. It suggests - and correct me if I've got this totally wrong - that people from counter-cultures can't complain about being railroaded, because many people are immediately going to go there when hearing about the case!? Have I got that wrong?



Notwithstanding my pledge to shut up until I know more......

It does not suggest that counter-culture people "can't complain about being railroaded"; what it does suggest, however, is that people will not necessarily be particularly motivated to act on the complaint. I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it? If people were naturally solicitous of the rights of those who are different, then Nyki and half the people in prison right now probably wouldn't be there. I'm not arguing that it's good. I'm not arguing that it's laudable. I'm not even arguing that it's understandable. I'm certainly not arguing the Nyki deserves to be in prison because some judge decided he didn't like the cut of her jib. What I am saying though is that it is a reality that Niky faces, and advocacy on her behalf (it would seem to me) needs to acknowledge it, embrace it, and anticipate it any effort designed to rally support for her.
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:23 pm

wald1900 wrote:Notwithstanding my pledge to shut up until I know more......

It does not suggest that counter-culture people "can't complain about being railroaded"; what it does suggest, however, is that people will not necessarily be particularly motivated to act on the complaint. I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it? If people were naturally solicitous of the rights of those who are different, then Niky and half the people in prison right now probably wouldn't be there. I'm not arguing that it's good. I'm not arguing that it's laudable. I'm not even arguing that it's understandable. What I am saying though is that it is a reality that Niky faces, and advocacy on her behalf (it would seem to me) needs to acknowledge it, embrace it, and anticipate it any effort designed to rally support for her.


There are cases where it is worse. . . . .Cameron Todd Willingham by all accounts was not a pleasant person but the problem is that the evidence does not support him having murdered his daughters.
Vilifying or making the defendant an "other" is a common tactic.

There is lot I do not understand about the Canadian legal system. . . .I do not believe that either in the United States or Great Britain a second degree murder case would not involve a jury. In addition, you effectively get a single appeal and that is it.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:10 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
wald1900 wrote:Notwithstanding my pledge to shut up until I know more......

It does not suggest that counter-culture people "can't complain about being railroaded"; what it does suggest, however, is that people will not necessarily be particularly motivated to act on the complaint. I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it? If people were naturally solicitous of the rights of those who are different, then Niky and half the people in prison right now probably wouldn't be there. I'm not arguing that it's good. I'm not arguing that it's laudable. I'm not even arguing that it's understandable. What I am saying though is that it is a reality that Niky faces, and advocacy on her behalf (it would seem to me) needs to acknowledge it, embrace it, and anticipate it any effort designed to rally support for her.


There are cases where it is worse. . . . .Cameron Todd Willingham by all accounts was not a pleasant person but the problem is that the evidence does not support him having murdered his daughters.
Vilifying or making the defendant an "other" is a common tactic.

There is lot I do not understand about the Canadian legal system. . . .I do not believe that either in the United States or Great Britain a second degree murder case would not involve a jury. In addition, you effectively get a single appeal and that is it.




A couple of points. 1. I believe that she waived her right to a jury trial (perhaps being concerned that a jury would be negative for some of the reasons suggested by Wald), and 2. like it or not, the criminal justice system treats people very differently based on race, economic status, appearance, culture, etc. from the moment police arrive on the scene, through the interrogation, through the decision to prosecute, through the trial, through sentencing, and then at the point of deciding whether to grant parole. In the Kish case, advocates will definitely be faced with the issue of cultural hostility and a suspicion of "street people". Lawyers who represent defendants often focus on how to "present" them in court (in my jurisdiction it is popular to have defendants wear glasses whether they need them or not) - including hair style, dress, demeanor etc. It is vitally important. It is definitely one of the uphill battles in this case. Whether the decision maker "likes" the defendant is vitally important (more so with juries but still important with judges). This is not only an economic issue - wealthy defendants like Robert Durst and Phil Spector can dig themselves just a deep a hole as gang bangers.
I think that this is a case that we should push but I think we have to bear this issue in mind.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:07 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
wald1900 wrote:I have a dear friend who lives in Kitchner, Ontario, which is very near the prison where Nyki is being held. If I recall correctly, although this friend's daughters didn't know Nyki, they are of the same age and hung out in many of the same places. This friend is a very kind, thoughtful person, yet after I'd pointed the story out to her and she'd had a chance to read about it a little, she shared with me that she struggled to feel any sense of investment in Nyki's cause. While she was willing to concede the possibility that Nyki had been railroaded and felt that if the court had singled her out because of her counterculture status that it was unfair, she nonetheless had difficulty warming up to Nyki's because of her participation in the melee where Hammond was killed. In short, she saw Nyki as an unsympathetic victim. I mention this story for two reasons. First, I thought it was an interesting (and perhaps, helpful) insight that might suggest (to the extent it hasn't been already) a weak spot to be addressed in any advocacy efforts. Second, for those of you who are so passionate about the case, is there something about her or her evident involvement in the melee that my friend is missing or is seeing wrongly?

Again, I'm the newby in the room, so be patient with me :-)

I'm fairly sure the following thing I'm writing does not come out of any sense of "passion" for this case, but I find this friend's attitude troubling. (In fairness to your friend, I use similar reasoning for why, in essence, why I don't get involved in so many others.)

My initial reaction to not getting at all involved in the Amanda Knox case was essentially this. I figured they had DNA of the young lady, and besides hundreds of students go overseas every year and do stupid things. I had a buddy who woke up one morning in Mexico after a week-long binge and discovered the woman beside him was his wife!!!!! It took years to sort that out.

I mean this seriously - we all need an excuse not to peel back the onion. If I had not peeled back the onion in the Murder of Meredith case, I am sure the Italian Supreme Court would have still come to its senses on March 27, 2015. Yet increasingly the issue of citizen journalism (for good and bad!) is being referenced as having an influence on these things.

So..... back to the chase - Nyki participated in the melee. So she ends up being to sole person in the slammer for the outcome of that. There's only one layer of onion which needs pulling back to show how, on many levels, that is disturbing reasoning. The whole idea of a wrongfully convicted person being an "unsympathetic victim" reminds me of another author on another service who sees a version of "slut shaming" and internet bullying as being key to understanding the Knox/Sollecito case.

Nyki's involvement in the melee is relevant on the three issues which Judge Nordheimer says convicted her, and he's the convicting judge:

    1) if she took the knife from the south fight to the north fight, then she is equally convictable of second-degree murder, as if she'd stabbed Hammond herself
    2) if she'd been in possession of the knife at the north fight (while the "reckless harm" was well underway) and passed it to someone who'd done the stabbing, then she is equally convictable of second-degree murder, as if she'd stabbed Hammond herself.
    3) there was only one knife at the north side fight

The irresistible inference Nordheimer conjures up is that since it is only Nyki's and Hammond's blood on the knife, that Nyki at the very least must have done #1 or #2. Because of #3.

You see her conviction is not based on her solely being there at the melee. I'd suggest that Nyki's actions at BOTH fights were defensive - it was either her or Faith Watts who literally saved Doug Fresh's life at the south fight by inflicting non-life threatening knife wounds on to Hammond's back, and the evidence equally suggests that Nyki could have been wounded herself in an attempt to get someone off of Hammond at the north fight. That the same set of facts could equally suggest that Hammond was wounded fatally by a second knife, as yet unfound. Nordheimer did not prove "no second knife" even on the balance of probabilities, he only surmised it. Further that Nyki was wounded with Faith Watts' knife after Hammond himself took possession on it, and he "accidentally" slashed her in the melee.... then himself bled on the knife as he escaped.

I'd suggest that this is the same sort of and equal irresistible inference which can be drawn, at least equal to Nordheimer's. His notion that he's proven (either on the basis of it being likely that there was only one, or on the balance of probabilities there was only one) that there had to have been only one knife at that melee is the most ludicrous assumption of all. At a street fight? One knife? With Woolley and Hal Amero there? Sure, and there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

I'm a tad offended that mere "involvement" in a street melee not of one's making is insinuated to project some kind of character on to Nyki, which justifies an, "oh well, she was involved so I don't care that she is rotting in prison." as a result. Sorry. Anyone could have been picked at random out of that melee, and put in the slammer!!!! That's the way it looks from this seat.

There is no evidence in front of Nordheimer that Nyki was involved in the "reckless harm" part of the statute. None.


I find it particularly instructive that Justice Nordheimer accepts Watts' identification of the knife as being hers, yet categorically dismisses her sworn testimony that Hammond took the knife away from her. This is a major example of a problem found throughout the case. The judge not only picks which witness to believe and which to ignore, he chooses pieces of information from within the same witness' testimony to keep or discard, and always to Nyki's detriment. The Crown's "star" witness, Melissa Gallately is given center stage describing a man down on the sidewalk being beaten by a woman and two men, with the implication that this is Nyki and Hammond. The fact that Gallately claims this man freed himself from his predicament and fled the scene in a car is simply ignored though it is simply wrong. ALL sides agree that Hammond left the scene hanging on to the side of taxi that carried him about a block west to where he fell off in front of the church which is where the ambulance found him. If we accept Gallately in her entirety, she did NOT see Hammond. She may possibly have seen his friend Dranichak who does claim to have been beaten while lying on the pavement and who did flee in a cab. But this cherry picking is just outrageous. I liken it to telling the police you saw a tall, thin, caucasion, male running from the liquor store with a gun in his hand. The authorities like tall, thin, male, running, store and gun, but since they've indicted a black man, they simply ignore the part where you said caucasion.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:25 pm

wald1900 wrote:I'm sorry....I didn't say it because I didn't think it needed to be said; so for the record let me lay it out - everyone deserves justice, and no one should be denied justice because of who or what they are. The "troubling" reality is that marginalized people are most at risk precisely because the dominant culture holds them to be unworthy of the respect, dignity and regard for fundamental fairness to which "good people" naturally feel entitled. This explains why about 50% of the exonerees in the National Registry of Exonerations are black.

With this said, however, if Nyki was convicted precisely because she was deemed "unworthy" then it would seem to me that the reality on the ground is that it is an issue an advocacy team would want to tackle head on. Whether it is troubling or not, people will want to know why Nyki was on that street and what role she played in the melee before they commit themselves to outrage over the unfair treatment she's received. It sucks, but it's also true. Just a thought, but have you guys thought about making a virtue of vice and pushing advocacy for her precisely on the grounds that she was convicted for being "counterculture"...boldly embrace that aspect of her life.....give people new to the case a reason to overcome their natural indifference and to empathize with her and her plight.


Interestingly enough, Nyki wrote her own article on how living her chosen values got her framed for murder. I think it would be possible to confront the issue head on and make a virtue out of a "vice", exactly as you said. Just as the Amanda Knox story has given parents something to think about concerning their young adult children out in the world without experience, so too the parents of every Canadian college student should think about what might happen to them as they wander the country trying to have an inexpensive summer vacation. I think there could be a real possibility of those college students taking to wearing Free Nyki tee-shirts as well. In any case, with the rejection of Nyki's appeal this has become a political battle rather than a legal one. I've come to think it can map well onto Canada's recent shift to the conservative right on crime and the "Safe Streets and Communities" act which all conservatives voted for while everyone else voted against. That shift puzzles me, BTW, since Canada has a crime rate that has been going down for years, and is a fraction of that seen in the US which is currently starting to liberalize.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:31 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
wald1900 wrote:Notwithstanding my pledge to shut up until I know more......

It does not suggest that counter-culture people "can't complain about being railroaded"; what it does suggest, however, is that people will not necessarily be particularly motivated to act on the complaint. I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it? If people were naturally solicitous of the rights of those who are different, then Niky and half the people in prison right now probably wouldn't be there. I'm not arguing that it's good. I'm not arguing that it's laudable. I'm not even arguing that it's understandable. What I am saying though is that it is a reality that Niky faces, and advocacy on her behalf (it would seem to me) needs to acknowledge it, embrace it, and anticipate it any effort designed to rally support for her.


There are cases where it is worse. . . . .Cameron Todd Willingham by all accounts was not a pleasant person but the problem is that the evidence does not support him having murdered his daughters.
Vilifying or making the defendant an "other" is a common tactic.

There is lot I do not understand about the Canadian legal system. . . .I do not believe that either in the United States or Great Britain a second degree murder case would not involve a jury. In addition, you effectively get a single appeal and that is it.




A couple of points. 1. I believe that she waived her right to a jury trial (perhaps being concerned that a jury would be negative for some of the reasons suggested by Wald), and 2. like it or not, the criminal justice system treats people very differently based on race, economic status, appearance, culture, etc. from the moment police arrive on the scene, through the interrogation, through the decision to prosecute, through the trial, through sentencing, and then at the point of deciding whether to grant parole. In the Kish case, advocates will definitely be faced with the issue of cultural hostility and a suspicion of "street people". Lawyers who represent defendants often focus on how to "present" them in court (in my jurisdiction it is popular to have defendants wear glasses whether they need them or not) - including hair style, dress, demeanor etc. It is vitally important. It is definitely one of the uphill battles in this case. Whether the decision maker "likes" the defendant is vitally important (more so with juries but still important with judges). This is not only an economic issue - wealthy defendants like Robert Durst and Phil Spector can dig themselves just a deep a hole as gang bangers.
I think that this is a case that we should push but I think we have to bear this issue in mind.


For a simple example of the reasons for opting for a bench trial, Nyki was subjected to an attempt by the police to frame her for an unrelated assault for the purpose of revoking her bail. The press duly reported that the "Panhandler Killer" had been arrested again for another assault. In short order one judge verbally acknowledged what the police where doing and would not revoke bail, then another judge vacated the bogus charge altogether. Did the press report that the charge had been dismissed? Of course not, they said nothing. Hence the decision against a jury, in the understandable but mistaken belief that a judge would be more fair.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:57 pm

wald1900 wrote:Sorry, I'm talking without being armed with a complete understanding of her case. As I said, I was just asking a question, but should probably shut up until I know more.

Please do not shut up.

Like anywhere, we here can be caught in our own echo chamber. Without a "dissenting" voice, challenging received wisdom, the received wisdom misses much.

You are perhaps the most valuable person here!

Yes it will result in push back. But please please keep on.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby DaveET » Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:48 pm

Good to see this thread kicking off again. Christine Bivens (Nyki's mum) is with Nyki on an Easter weekend visit so I was going to suggest to her after the weekend to bring the petition to IA. My understanding is that it is the fifth estate producers who want to guage the level of interest in Nyki's case before commiting to the programme without Nyki's direct involvement. The authorities have so far refused fifth estate permission to interview Nyki in Grand Valley. Interestingly the petition has got 439 signatures in the six days since it was posted, which is a much faster uptake than Amanda's recent effort.

Whilst this thread has been very quiet for a year now there has been a continuing lively discussion on Nyki's facebook page, to which leon has been a major contributer. A read over there will get people up to speed fairly quickly I think
"In God We Trust. All Others Show Data"
Andrew von Eschenbach. Former chief of FDA
DaveET
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:40 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby skepticDave » Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:58 pm

wald1900 wrote:I have a dear friend who lives in Kitchner, Ontario, which is very near the prison where Nyki is being held. If I recall correctly, although this friend's daughters didn't know Nyki, they are of the same age and hung out in many of the same places. This friend is a very kind, thoughtful person, yet after I'd pointed the story out to her and she'd had a chance to read about it a little, she shared with me that she struggled to feel any sense of investment in Nyki's cause. While she was willing to concede the possibility that Nyki had been railroaded and felt that if the court had singled her out because of her counterculture status that it was unfair, she nonetheless had difficulty warming up to Nyki's because of her participation in the melee where Hammond was killed. In short, she saw Nyki as an unsympathetic victim. I mention this story for two reasons. First, I thought it was an interesting (and perhaps, helpful) insight that might suggest (to the extent it hasn't been already) a weak spot to be addressed in any advocacy efforts. Second, for those of you who are so passionate about the case, is there something about her or her evident involvement in the melee that my friend is missing or is seeing wrongly?

Again, I'm the newby in the room, so be patient with me :-)



I think wald1900 has a good point. When I first came to this site, and looked briefly at Nyki's case, I was not as interested in it as some of the others. The reason is because while there may not be evidence to prove her culpable of murder, I thought it might also not be possible to prove her innocence, if she was involved in the melee. My thinking was other cases where we can prove innocence in the case of a wrongful conviction are more interesting--and more urgent to correct.

I looked into Nyki's case for two reasons: The case takes place in Toronto, Canada, close to where I live. And second, I remember news reports about the "panhandler killer".

Learning the following facts about Nyki made me very interested in the case:

1) Nyki went to New Orleans to help those devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

2) Nyki started two non-profit organizations: 'Bound for Glory', a magazine for talented and neglected artists, and 'Books to Bars' a program to provide inmates with access to books.

I became convinced that someone who was intelligent enough to start a non-profit organization, and caring enough to help victims of a natural disaster is VERY unlikely to commit murder. Learning these facts alone changed my estimation from Nyki being involved in the murder from 'unlikely', to 'almost certainly not'.

It may be unfair, but it is human nature. An unsympathetic person garners less support than a sympathetic one. In this case, we should do all we can to dispell the notion that Nyki ever was a panhandler (she wasn't) and make sure people know what kind of person she really was, and all the good she did. This can only help her cause.
skepticDave
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:36 pm

skepticDave wrote:I think wald1900 has a good point. When I first came to this site, and looked briefly at Nyki's case, I was not as interested in it as some of the others. The reason is because while there may not be evidence to prove her culpable of murder, I thought it might also not be possible to prove her innocence, if she was involved in the melee. My thinking was other cases where we can prove innocence in the case of a wrongful conviction are more interesting--and more urgent to correct.


It is in large part an issue I have. . . .You often have to either prove innocence or make guilt look so crazy as to get the prosecution side to back off while they continue mumbling.

What I am curious is also on the back end that I am worried about. Can we make it more likely for her to be able to get parole at her 14 year mark instead of them playing games for years?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:09 am

I got this from FreeNyki.org:

Kish was not a panhandler but a young lady who had worked hard to be able to travel and experience life on the road as many others have done at her age. She had no criminal record and was an artistic girl who loved to sing and write songs. She was also an advocate for many causes dear to her heart. At the time of the encounter with Hammond, Kish was with her boyfriend and hanging out with some transient young people exploring the wild side of life. At times, some of Kish’s companions would ask a brother to spare a dime but it was not her way of life and she was by no means a panhandler standing in the street asking for money


What exactly does "hanging out with some transient young people exploring the wild side of life" mean? Was she homeless, or was she just slumming. Was this something she did regularly, or was she just out on a lark? Why was she there?

A review of her support site begs these questions, but leaves them unanswered. Frankly, it's maddening. As has been pointed out upstream, the answers to these questions should have no bearing on her guilt or innocence, but they most certainly do have a bearing on the degree of support she can expect from casual observers. I agree that she's been treated horribly and regardless of the answers I'll support her. But to do that effectively, I need to know who Nyki Kish is and what she was doing in the middle of a street brawl.
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:15 am

Desert Fox wrote:What I am curious is also on the back end that I am worried about. Can we make it more likely for her to be able to get parole at her 14 year mark instead of them playing games for years?


This begs a great question for the new guy......what is the advocacy strategy? Besides permission to have "The Fifth Estate" interview her, what are we trying to achieve on her behalf? What CAN we achieve on her behalf now that her appeal has been denied?
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby LarryK » Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:15 am

I don't have time to search for answers, so I'll just ask directly here:
1. Was Nyki ever proven to have been holding a knife? What direct evidence was there of this?
2. Is there any proof that contradicts the idea that her participation in the melee was only that she was trying to stop people who were attacking other people?
If her advocates cannot deny that she was holding a knife, or if they cannot account for all her verified actions as only trying to stop attacks, then their task is more difficult.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby skepticDave » Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:40 am

LarryK wrote:I don't have time to search for answers, so I'll just ask directly here:
1. Was Nyki ever proven to have been holding a knife? What direct evidence was there of this?
2. Is there any proof that contradicts the idea that her participation in the melee was only that she was trying to stop people who were attacking other people?
If her advocates cannot deny that she was holding a knife, or if they cannot account for all her verified actions as only trying to stop attacks, then their task is more difficult.



1. To my knowledge, the only direct evidence that Nyki was holding a knife came from the testimony of two eyewitnesses. Neither witness was able to pick Nyki out of a lineup, and one of the witnesses admitted that he may be mistaking Faith Watts and Nyki. Also, note that one of the witnesses stated she saw Nyki hold the knife in her mouth between her teeth. I think this is extremely unlikely.

2 To my knowledge, there is no proof that contradicts the idea that Nyki was solely trying to stop the confrontation. If fact, my belief is that this is likely.
skepticDave
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby roteoctober » Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:09 am

wald1900 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:What I am curious is also on the back end that I am worried about. Can we make it more likely for her to be able to get parole at her 14 year mark instead of them playing games for years?


This begs a great question for the new guy......what is the advocacy strategy? Besides permission to have "The Fifth Estate" interview her, what are we trying to achieve on her behalf? What CAN we achieve on her behalf now that her appeal has been denied?


Enough "noise" and outrage about her wrongful convicton to assure her a Supreme Court (or whatever its name) hearing or a political pardon?
Could this be the strategy?
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:23 am

roteoctober wrote:
wald1900 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:What I am curious is also on the back end that I am worried about. Can we make it more likely for her to be able to get parole at her 14 year mark instead of them playing games for years?


This begs a great question for the new guy......what is the advocacy strategy? Besides permission to have "The Fifth Estate" interview her, what are we trying to achieve on her behalf? What CAN we achieve on her behalf now that her appeal has been denied?


Enough "noise" and outrage about her wrongful convicton to assure her a Supreme Court (or whatever its name) hearing or a political pardon?
Could this be the strategy?

It is unlikely in Canada that this would ever make it to The Supreme Court of Canada. A ministerial review is the most likely possibility and the stats on that are not great.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:29 pm

If this was in the United States, I would argue that the best course of action would be a letter to the governor. Is there anything like that in Canada.
If you get a liberal governor in the states, they may be willing to give clemency although usually at the end of the term.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby pmop57 » Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:40 pm

Information about Canada (wrongful convictions)
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/YMC.pdf
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:41 pm

Desert Fox wrote:If this was in the United States, I would argue that the best course of action would be a letter to the governor. Is there anything like that in Canada.
If you get a liberal governor in the states, they may be willing to give clemency although usually at the end of the term.

IIUC correctly, the federal cabinet can make a decision like this, but mostly it starts with the federal Minister of Justice.

The link for beginning a "ministerial review" to the MoJ was posted upthread, but here it is again. It explains the process.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/rep14-rap14/index.html

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/rep14-rap14/rep14.pdf
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:42 pm

pmop57 wrote:Information about Canada (wrongful convictions)
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/YMC.pdf

This paper is great for understanding how they happen. There's very little about what to do once it has happened.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby pmop57 » Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:47 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
pmop57 wrote:Information about Canada (wrongful convictions)
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/YMC.pdf

This paper is great for understanding how they happen. There's very little about what to do once it has happened.


Are there Canadian organisations who work and engage around wrongful convictions?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:58 pm

pmop57 wrote:Are there Canadian organisations who work and engage around wrongful convictions?


The Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted - Rubin "The Hurricane" Carter's organization.

http://www.aidwyc.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_in_Defence_of_the_Wrongly_Convicted
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby LarryK » Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:55 pm

skepticDave wrote:
LarryK wrote:I don't have time to search for answers, so I'll just ask directly here:
1. Was Nyki ever proven to have been holding a knife? What direct evidence was there of this?
2. Is there any proof that contradicts the idea that her participation in the melee was only that she was trying to stop people who were attacking other people?
If her advocates cannot deny that she was holding a knife, or if they cannot account for all her verified actions as only trying to stop attacks, then their task is more difficult.



1. To my knowledge, the only direct evidence that Nyki was holding a knife came from the testimony of two eyewitnesses. Neither witness was able to pick Nyki out of a lineup, and one of the witnesses admitted that he may be mistaking Faith Watts and Nyki. Also, note that one of the witnesses stated she saw Nyki hold the knife in her mouth between her teeth. I think this is extremely unlikely.

2 To my knowledge, there is no proof that contradicts the idea that Nyki was solely trying to stop the confrontation. If fact, my belief is that this is likely.

Thanks, I suspected this. So many of you have "signed on" to Nyki's case that I won't devote much time here, but I wish you the best, and will check back from time to time for developments.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:27 am

Okay, so to summarize these comments it appears as though there is no clear consensus about the short-term tactical objectives of the advocacy effort beyond, perhaps, that of creating a higher degree of public awareness about Nyki's plight (e.g. "Fifth Estate" petition). I'll ask, real dumb, though......what practical good to Nyki will come from greater publicity if there remains no tenable legal path to securing her liberty (correct me PLEASE if I'm wrong, but from the comments above it doesn't appear as though there is)? Are the facts on the ground simply that there's no legal way to get her out of prison, and that the best she (and we) can hope for is that she get an early parole? Do we have any idea of what Nyki's expectations are? Or her counsel? What are they doing, what are their next steps and to what end?

,
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby pmop57 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:00 am

I was astonished about the construct of the Canadian laws (around the the knife present at the crime scene and the legal procedures largely disfavouring the defendants.
More and more I follow the cases in the US and now in Canada more and more I become convinced about the obvious qualities of the legal framework and trial procedures of my country even if also here many problems remain to be solved (among them many due to the size of the country) but with a clearly will to fix the problem.

The simple fact that the Prosecution could not prove beyond readonable doubt that Nyki was the owner of the knife, was introducing the knife in the fight, was handling the knife to somebody else, the simple fact that the Prosecution could not prove close to certainty that Nyki had been stabbing the victim would have led to her full acquittal and immediate release. I am even quite certain that this case as presented would not have taken the hurdle of the pre-trial, this case would not have gone to trial.

And even if there would have been a guilty verdict, a crime committed together with other in a street melee taking into consideration the ultimate agressivity of the later victim himself, the absence of any criminal history (violence, ...), the low age at the moment of the facts (21) the maximum sentence would have been up to 5 to 7 years with minimum of to 2,5 to 3,5 years.
on probation. Other eventual mitigating circumstances not even considered.

Even this was out of scope I had to mention. My opinion is that there are to much systems solely based on maximum sentencing and 'revenge'.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:31 am

This case makes me more nervous actually of Canadian law than American Law. There appears to be more checks and balances in the US legal system.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:51 am

As Far as her parole, I don't know if this is any help

To answer this question requires at least a brief explanation of the conditional release system in Canada, so I apologize for the tl;dr-ness of this post.

Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC1992, c20 in general (doesn't apply to non-federal sentences (less than 2 years) or life sentences) a person is eligible for full parole at 1/3 of their sentence, and day parole some time before that (generally six months for lengthy sentences). At 2/3 of their sentence (again, federal non-life sentences) the offender has a right to what is called statutory release. This is a nigh-mandatory release period where the person will still be under warrant, but will be released from the institution on conditions. A breach of the conditions may see them return to the institution, but unless the warden can demonstrate why the person should not be released (which requires reasonable belief there is a public safety risk) the offender has a right to serve the last 1/3 of their sentence in the community (generally some of that time in a halfway house, but conditions vary depending on the circumstance). This means that offenders get "paroled" without requiring anything at all, really, after 2/3 of their warrant period.

As for the actual operation of the Parole Board, for those who go before it either after 1/3 of their sentence, or those with life sentences, there are a number of factors the Board must take into consideration. Under s. 100 of the Act, the


purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by means of decisions on the timing and conditions of release that will best facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.



Section 101(a) requires the Board to consider

all relevant available information, including the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, the nature and gravity of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, information from the trial or sentencing process and information obtained from victims, offenders and other components of the criminal justice system, including assessments provided by correctional authorities;



Ultimately, however, parole is a discretionary grant (unlike statutory release) and the actual practice of the Board I can't speak to; that's out of my bailiwick. I would imagine that accepting responsibility goes a long way, but at law, at least, it is not necessary to achieve parole.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:54 am

Desert Fox wrote:This case makes me more nervous actually of Canadian law than American Law. There appears to be more checks and balances in the US legal system.



Our system is designed to check an out of control judiciary (which the British had imposed on the colonists under George III). The right to a jury trial is built into our Constitution (but it can be waived as it was in the Kish case). We also have state and federal courts and the right to federal habeas corpus (recently severely restricted) after a state conviction. This tends to lead to interminable appeals (somewhat like the Italian system). Many people complain about lack of "finality" in the American system but I think that this may be one of its strengths. In a system with multiple layers of appellate review and then with post-conviction remedies which in turn can lead to further appeals, it is possible for a court to review the case many years after the crime and coolly assess the evidence at a time when there is no media drumbeat for a conviction. In a case like Kish, where I am suspicious that there was pressure to "solve the case" (this is a paradigmatic case of "Crime in the Streets") and an enormous reluctance to admit that, due to investigative failures, the authorities really had no idea of who committed the crime, time may bring wisdom.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:59 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:This case makes me more nervous actually of Canadian law than American Law. There appears to be more checks and balances in the US legal system.


Our system is designed to check an out of control judiciary (which the British had imposed on the colonists under George III). The right to a jury trial is built into our Constitution (but it can be waived as it was in the Kish case). We also have state and federal courts and the right to federal habeas corpus (recently severely restricted) after a state conviction. This tends to lead to interminable appeals (somewhat like the Italian system). Many people complain about lack of "finality" in the American system but I think that this may be one of its strengths. In a system with multiple layers of appellate review and then with post-conviction remedies which in turn can lead to further appeals, it is possible for a court to review the case many years after the crime and coolly assess the evidence at a time when there is no media drumbeat for a conviction. In a case like Kish, where I am suspicious that there was pressure to "solve the case" (this is a paradigmatic case of "Crime in the Streets") and an enormous reluctance to admit that, due to investigative failures, the authorities really had no idea of who committed the crime, time may bring wisdom.


What is interesting though is that English law I think would be better for her as well.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:16 pm

wald1900 wrote:Okay, so to summarize these comments it appears as though there is no clear consensus about the short-term tactical objectives of the advocacy effort beyond, perhaps, that of creating a higher degree of public awareness about Nyki's plight (e.g. "Fifth Estate" petition). I'll ask, real dumb, though......what practical good to Nyki will come from greater publicity if there remains no tenable legal path to securing her liberty (correct me PLEASE if I'm wrong, but from the comments above it doesn't appear as though there is)? Are the facts on the ground simply that there's no legal way to get her out of prison, and that the best she (and we) can hope for is that she get an early parole? Do we have any idea of what Nyki's expectations are? Or her counsel? What are they doing, what are their next steps and to what end?

,

It's probably best that what Nyki's counsel's expectation are, is kept quiet. By that, I do not mean to make it seem that I am an insider to it, I am not. And I do not wish to know, either.

Because of Canada's well trod path of wrongful convictions - do not discount, "creating a higher degree of public awareness."
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:41 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:This case makes me more nervous actually of Canadian law than American Law. There appears to be more checks and balances in the US legal system.


Our system is designed to check an out of control judiciary (which the British had imposed on the colonists under George III). The right to a jury trial is built into our Constitution (but it can be waived as it was in the Kish case). We also have state and federal courts and the right to federal habeas corpus (recently severely restricted) after a state conviction. This tends to lead to interminable appeals (somewhat like the Italian system). Many people complain about lack of "finality" in the American system but I think that this may be one of its strengths. In a system with multiple layers of appellate review and then with post-conviction remedies which in turn can lead to further appeals, it is possible for a court to review the case many years after the crime and coolly assess the evidence at a time when there is no media drumbeat for a conviction. In a case like Kish, where I am suspicious that there was pressure to "solve the case" (this is a paradigmatic case of "Crime in the Streets") and an enormous reluctance to admit that, due to investigative failures, the authorities really had no idea of who committed the crime, time may bring wisdom.


What is interesting though is that English law I think would be better for her as well.

Why do you think so, DF? We have some history of screwing up ID cases over here and of rejecting well-merited appeals too.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:24 pm

Does England generally have more than a single probable appeal. Seems to be the problem here where you can appeal once and you are done.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:26 pm

wald1900 wrote:Okay, so to summarize these comments it appears as though there is no clear consensus about the short-term tactical objectives of the advocacy effort beyond, perhaps, that of creating a higher degree of public awareness about Nyki's plight (e.g. "Fifth Estate" petition). I'll ask, real dumb, though......what practical good to Nyki will come from greater publicity if there remains no tenable legal path to securing her liberty (correct me PLEASE if I'm wrong, but from the comments above it doesn't appear as though there is)? Are the facts on the ground simply that there's no legal way to get her out of prison, and that the best she (and we) can hope for is that she get an early parole? Do we have any idea of what Nyki's expectations are? Or her counsel? What are they doing, what are their next steps and to what end?

,


Nyki's next step is a Ministerial appeal. The odds normally aren't good but I'm hoping that the Minister is not used to receiving a groundswell outpouring of communications supporting an appellant. This is exactly what we hope to have in place when the time comes. He can order a new trial, and most of us think the Crown would drop the matter at that point. All in all, I think this case has to be made as big a problem for the Canadian justice system as Amanda Knox was for its Italian counterpart. The Italians ultimately realized that doing the right thing was right for Justice and right for their system.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:36 pm

Somebody want want to ask some of the Canadian popular podcasts to plug this then. . . .Maybe somebody Canadian themselves
The Generation Why guys might be a good target as well.

Edit: Here is their contact page
http://raasnio.com/GenerationWhyPodcast ... y-podcast/
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:36 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Does England generally have more than a single probable appeal. Seems to be the problem here where you can appeal once and you are done.

No. You can appeal again but there has to be fresh evidence I think.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:40 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Ultimately, however, parole is a discretionary grant (unlike statutory release) and the actual practice of the Board I can't speak to; that's out of my bailiwick. I would imagine that accepting responsibility goes a long way, but at law, at least, it is not necessary to achieve parole.[/i]


It would be great if the system really does allow parole without an admission of guilt, because I have the impression that Nyki isn't going to budge on this point. She gives up a great deal already, not just at parole time years from now.

The requirement to admit guilt and express "remorse" has always struck me as profoundly reminiscent of a totalitarian show trial. As an American, I also think it violates the spirit of the Fifth Amendment's protection against being forced to incriminate oneself since we've seen that appeals can succeed years after the crime.

Most states in the US have this requirement, but a few have recently dropped it. The "Prisoners Dilemma" is being ever more widely recognized here as doubly victimizing the wrongfully convicted, and generating increasing concern as people realize just how many wrongful convictions there are.

Ultimately, I'd like to see a ban on "Prisoner's Dilemma" practices incorporated into international human rights treaties.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:13 pm

leonmyerson wrote:Nyki's next step is a Ministerial appeal. The odds normally aren't good but I'm hoping that the Minister is not used to receiving a groundswell outpouring of communications supporting an appellant. This is exactly what we hope to have in place when the time comes. He can order a new trial, and most of us think the Crown would drop the matter at that point. All in all, I think this case has to be made as big a problem for the Canadian justice system as Amanda Knox was for its Italian counterpart. The Italians ultimately realized that doing the right thing was right for Justice and right for their system.

As for the highlighted part - what is the basis for thinking this?

As for as big a groundswell and problem for the Canadian justice system, with all due respect I doubt that. There was a relatively brief flurry of news in the Greater Toronto area about pan-handlers, but this case was mostly completely unknown in the rest of the country.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby DaveET » Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:21 pm

But Bill. that's thw whole point about getting the programme made by fifth estate, they wanted to do the programme with Nyki's participation, they just need a kick to do it without!
"In God We Trust. All Others Show Data"
Andrew von Eschenbach. Former chief of FDA
DaveET
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:40 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Christine Bivens » Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:27 pm

Seems that I have forgotten just how to post properly to this forum, thought I had about 30 minutes ago but nope! I am very thankful to see the discussion continue and see new people posting. Nyki's case, while dire is not as bleak as it may seem. We do have options available to help exonerate her. Fresh evidence could prompt another appeal and the Ministerial Review on the grounds of miscarriage of justice are still on the table and being worked on. Discussion like this one are very IMPORTANT to both options. We are trying to find a cost effective way to let people here see all the case materials we have. We have over 50 hours of videos, transcripts, police and forensic files plus the interviews from our private detective. I think I have gone as far as I can because I believe you get locked into the same way of thinking after a while. Fresh eyes would be a huge step forward. Nyki's appeal lawyer will guide me on what we need to show a miscarriage and it interested in anything relating to Hal, Nalha and to when witnesses speak of two concurrent fights happening but any and all discrepancies are important. Thank you!
Christine Bivens
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Christine Bivens » Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:41 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Somebody want want to ask some of the Canadian popular podcasts to plug this then. . . .Maybe somebody Canadian themselves
The Generation Why guys might be a good target as well.

Edit: Here is their contact page
http://raasnio.com/GenerationWhyPodcast ... y-podcast/


This is great, thank you!
Christine Bivens
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:27 pm

I contacted the "Generation Why" guys myself but I guess a number of contacts would show definite interest
Might also be good if somebody who knows the case well might be willing to talk to them (I don't think I would be best)
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:44 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
leonmyerson wrote:Nyki's next step is a Ministerial appeal. The odds normally aren't good but I'm hoping that the Minister is not used to receiving a groundswell outpouring of communications supporting an appellant. This is exactly what we hope to have in place when the time comes. He can order a new trial, and most of us think the Crown would drop the matter at that point. All in all, I think this case has to be made as big a problem for the Canadian justice system as Amanda Knox was for its Italian counterpart. The Italians ultimately realized that doing the right thing was right for Justice and right for their system.

As for the highlighted part - what is the basis for thinking this?

As for as big a groundswell and problem for the Canadian justice system, with all due respect I doubt that. There was a relatively brief flurry of news in the Greater Toronto area about pan-handlers, but this case was mostly completely unknown in the rest of the country.


The Crown failed to keep track of many of the witnesses between the prelim and the trial, especially those favorable to Nyki. There's no reason to think they got any better at that, but most of those they've lost by now will be their own. OTOH, her three American friends could not be called as witnesses because they had been deported under a five year no reentry order, and the Crown would not help the defense get past that. Imagine that for a moment, you need a foreign citizen as a defense witness, they can be located and are willing to come, but your own government uses immigration law to block them from attending your trial. But now, the order has expired! Then there's the prospect of the Crown having to possibly face a jury trial. The bench trial option was chosen because it was felt that the media had poisoned the jury pool. But as you've pointed out yourself, that was long ago and perhaps not that big a factor as it looked. I don't think a jury would fail to see at least reasonable doubt. I don't think the Crown would expect that either. Multiple minds have spent a lot of time going over every facet of this case. We've found a lot that wasn't noticed in time for the trial, and even errors of fact in the appeals decision. I think we're just getting started. As for the rest of Canada, the Fifth Estate segment will be a start, but we're here for the long haul. As long as the activism continues, her supporters grow in number.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:46 pm

From "Applications for Ministerial Review" http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-j ... p1.html#a1

When an innocent person is found guilty of a criminal offence, there has clearly been a miscarriage of justice.

A miscarriage of justice may be suspected where new information surfaces which casts serious doubt on whether a convicted person received a fair trial – for example, where important information had not been disclosed to the defence.

Since 1892, the Minister of Justice has had the power, in one form or another, to review a criminal conviction under federal law to determine whether there may have been a miscarriage of justice. The current regime is set out in sections 696.1 – 696.6 of the Criminal Code.

The conviction review process begins when a person submits an “application for ministerial review (miscarriages of justice),” also known as a conviction review application.

The application for ministerial review must be supported by new matters of significance – usually important new information or evidence that was not previously considered by the courts. If the Minister is satisfied that those matters provide a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred, the Minister may grant the convicted person a remedy and return the case to the courts – either referring the case to a court of appeal to be heard as a new appeal or directing that a new trial be held. The Minister may also refer a question to the court of appeal in the appropriate province.


Just on the face of it, this looks kind of promising....Do we know anything about status or timing?

ETA - you know what I really liked about this website? It wasn't written in Italian!
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby wald1900 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:50 pm

leonmyerson wrote: Multiple minds have spent a lot of time going over every facet of this case. We've found a lot that wasn't noticed in time for the trial, and even errors of fact in the appeals decision.


Are these summarized someplace?
wald1900
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:19 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:15 pm

wald1900 wrote:
leonmyerson wrote: Multiple minds have spent a lot of time going over every facet of this case. We've found a lot that wasn't noticed in time for the trial, and even errors of fact in the appeals decision.


Are these summarized someplace?


Right now the best sources are the FreeNyki.org website and the Free Nyki facebook group. There's also a "cause" facebook group but the other has far more info. Two great starting places are Lise LaSalle's article and Clive Wismayer's wonderful analysis of the verdict.

I know that Christine is looking for a place to store all of the information online. It is a huge amount of material, much of contradictory. Its probably impossible to construct a single theory as to what happened that night. But if so, it was impossible for the Crown as well.

The Crown brought three versions of the murder charge against Nyki. That she either stabbed Hammond herself, or passed the knife to someone else for them to do it, or that she was guilty as a "participant". Justice Nordheimer rejected that last one, ruling that if she neither did the stabbing or passed the knife, the Crown could not show she should have known someone else would do it. I agree with that part of his verdict. What I find truly incredible is the fact that the Crown even made that last charge. It is proof that they were not sure that either of the other charges was true. And if the Crown isn't sure of its own narrative, we're at reasonable doubt before the trial even starts.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby DaveET » Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:25 pm

leonmyerson wrote:
wald1900 wrote:
leonmyerson wrote: Multiple minds have spent a lot of time going over every facet of this case. We've found a lot that wasn't noticed in time for the trial, and even errors of fact in the appeals decision.


Are these summarized someplace?


Right now the best sources are the FreeNyki.org website and the Free Nyki facebook group. There's also a "cause" facebook group but the other has far more info. Two great starting places are Lise LaSalle's article and Clive Wismayer's wonderful analysis of the verdict.

I know that Christine is looking for a place to store all of the information online. It is a huge amount of material, much of contradictory. Its probably impossible to construct a single theory as to what happened that night. But if so, it was impossible for the Crown as well.

The Crown brought three versions of the murder charge against Nyki. That she either stabbed Hammond herself, or passed the knife to someone else for them to do it, or that she was guilty as a "participant". Justice Nordheimer rejected that last one, ruling that if she neither did the stabbing or passed the knife, the Crown could not show she should have known someone else would do it. I agree with that part of his verdict. What I find truly incredible is the fact that the Crown even made that last
charge. It is proof that they were not sure that either of the other charges was true. And if the Crown isn't sure of its own
narrative, we're at reasonable doubt before the trial even starts.


Also, both Nordheimer in his justification and the appeal court accept that it is possible Nyki was not the stabber, in fact if I recall correctly the appeal court even sugggested Woolley as a possible alternative. Plenty of BARD there. Which leaves carrying the knife.........for which the evidence is.......the testimony of Stopford, who identified Watts not Nyki and the wonderful imagination of the judge who believed it more likely that the high on drugs, drunk as a skunk, fiercely combative Watts was more likely to stay and comfort her stricken boyfriend.

As Bill is want to say, about this bridge I have for sale.........yes I know, I read these threads a lot more than I write in them!
"In God We Trust. All Others Show Data"
Andrew von Eschenbach. Former chief of FDA
DaveET
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:40 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:48 am

The heart of Nordheimer's decision is: there was a woman in the fight and it must have been Nyki because she got cut. This central idea is buttressed by a quasi-finding that there was just one knife in the whole affair and the only person who could have conveyed it from the south side of the street, where Paget and Stopford' saw it, to the north side where it became the murder weapon, was Nyki. Checkmate.

The theory hangs on a number of threads, all of them eminently open to challenge:

1 the pasta vid proves Hammond did not convey the knife across the street - in fact, it may prove the opposite as there is at least one frame which suggests the opposite possibility. In any case, the phenomenon known as 'compression' by which the CCTV software overwrites foreground with background makes this finding unsustainable. In my view, this one point is capable of amounting to fresh evidence sufficient to warrant review (and is the main thing I would want to correct in my case summary)

2 Faith did not follow Nyki across the street as she was taking care of Doug Fresh on the south sidewalk. This one hangs on some very equivocal evidence given by Bordignon that the women tending to Fresh seemed to be in some kind of relationship with him and on the judge's flimsy speculation that she would have wanted to take care of her boyfriend.

3 that there was only one knife - poppycock - and that the same knife stabbed both Hammond and Nyki. The latter finding derives from the presence of their mixed DNA at the hinge of the blade but is easily refuted. We pretty much know Nykie was stabbed by Hammond but his blood could be on the knife because his hands were bleeding, presumably from fending off his attackers. Leon, can you please post again that point of yours about the typical lock knife injury where you lose the top of your thumb when closing the blade? I think that's important to this point and to point 1 above.

4 that the fight was 4M + 2F (streetkids) -v- 2M (jocks or preppie types). Both Nordheimer and the appeal court fall for this. Amanda Jones saw a whole bunch of preppie types run away West right after the south side fight. She thought it was they who were the aggressors. You can hear her refer to them in her 911 call. Others saw up to 10 people in the fight. If memory serves, Dranichak himself estimated 8-10 and he was counting streetkids only. We know of at least one extra female (Nalah Saleh) whose shirt was used to wrap Nyki's arm. As another candidate for 'the woman in the fight' there is the wholly innocent female witness (Da Silva? Not sure, need to check) who tried to break it up and got herself covered in blood. She could easily have been mistaken for a participant as she was in the thick of it. In fact, unless she was wearing an invisibility cloak, it must have been her at some point.

Added to the above, the male who was heard to say 'you die tonight' has a hoarse voice. Hal Amero has such a voice. He was present. He had a rep for street violence. Woolley can be heard in the background in Patisopoulos's 911 call (I believe) and in the City TV film. He sounds hysterical rather than hoarse. Randy has suggested Hammond as the man with the hoarse voice but I disagree. He has a rather high voice. There is a plausible alternative suspect IOW. This is also relevant to point 4. The guy sporting knife wounds to his torso definitely was not Woolley or Fresh.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby pmop57 » Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:14 am

I do not remember, what was the sequence of events concerning the stabbing? Who was the first stabbed Nyki or Hammond?
As far as I could read Nyki suffered an arterial cut? Is this correct?
Was the owner of the seized knife identified?
Are the CCTV somewhere available without restriction?

My opinion still is that this was always
- a case of Police misconduct, evidence tampering (lost CCTV tapes, ...)
- a case of judicial arbitrariness
- a political case based on a social problem background visualised and externalised through the "pan-handler" and "street kids" problems (phenomena).
The law enforcement members and especially the judiciary through Nordheimer wanted to establish an example, and they wanted to establish it on a Canadian citizen, therefore only Nyki was finally retained, arrested, tried and sentenced.
For me this is a classical where the Judiciary wants to please or/side the Politics. Nordheimer's decisions are mainly based on arbitrariness and the ruling does certainly not satisfy the criteria of 'beyond any reasonable doubt.

As said, set into the social context this was in my opinion mainly a political trial and the Police and Judiciary did not want to step back when they recognised that Nyki was not fitting the characteristics of their initial target (the pan-handler and street kids).
Reading the publications and articles (as well as the comment sections) after the crime occurred only strengthened my opinion that this was basically a political trial.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:02 am

pmop57 wrote:I do not remember, what was the sequence of events concerning the stabbing? Who was the first stabbed Nyki or Hammond?
As far as I could read Nyki suffered an arterial cut? Is this correct?
Was the owner of the seized knife identified?
Are the CCTV somewhere available without restriction?

snip

Hammond was stabbed first, almost certainly. Nyki was probably the last to be stabbed as Hammond made his escape. Yes, it was an arterial cut to the forearm. The owner of the knife was Faith Watts. It was one of an identical pair she and Fresh had recently stolen in Montreal. The other one was on his person, unused. She admitted it was hers and testified at prelim (and by way of the recording of her prelim testimony which as admitted at trial) Hammond had snatched it from her immediately after she produced it. The Pasta did is online. Google 'Kish pasta vid' and you can watch it.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:47 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:The heart of Nordheimer's decision is: there was a woman in the fight and it must have been Nyki because she got cut. This central idea is buttressed by a quasi-finding that there was just one knife in the whole affair and the only person who could have conveyed it from the south side of the street, where Paget and Stopford' saw it, to the north side where it became the murder weapon, was Nyki. Checkmate.

The theory hangs on a number of threads, all of them eminently open to challenge:

1 the pasta vid proves Hammond did not convey the knife across the street - in fact, it may prove the opposite as there is at least one frame which suggests the opposite possibility. In any case, the phenomenon known as 'compression' by which the CCTV software overwrites foreground with background makes this finding unsustainable. In my view, this one point is capable of amounting to fresh evidence sufficient to warrant review (and is the main thing I would want to correct in my case summary)

2 Faith did not follow Nyki across the street as she was taking care of Doug Fresh on the south sidewalk. This one hangs on some very equivocal evidence given by Bordignon that the women tending to Fresh seemed to be in some kind of relationship with him and on the judge's flimsy speculation that she would have wanted to take care of her boyfriend.

3 that there was only one knife - poppycock - and that the same knife stabbed both Hammond and Nyki. The latter finding derives from the presence of their mixed DNA at the hinge of the blade but is easily refuted. We pretty much know Nykie was stabbed by Hammond but his blood could be on the knife because his hands were bleeding, presumably from fending off his attackers. Leon, can you please post again that point of yours about the typical lock knife injury where you lose the top of your thumb when closing the blade? I think that's important to this point and to point 1 above.

4 that the fight was 4M + 2F (streetkids) -v- 2M (jocks or preppie types). Both Nordheimer and the appeal court fall for this. Amanda Jones saw a whole bunch of preppie types run away West right after the south side fight. She thought it was they who were the aggressors. You can hear her refer to them in her 911 call. Others saw up to 10 people in the fight. If memory serves, Dranichak himself estimated 8-10 and he was counting streetkids only. We know of at least one extra female (Nalah Saleh) whose shirt was used to wrap Nyki's arm. As another candidate for 'the woman in the fight' there is the wholly innocent female witness (Da Silva? Not sure, need to check) who tried to break it up and got herself covered in blood. She could easily have been mistaken for a participant as she was in the thick of it. In fact, unless she was wearing an invisibility cloak, it must have been her at some point.

Added to the above, the male who was heard to say 'you die tonight' has a hoarse voice. Hal Amero has such a voice. He was present. He had a rep for street violence. Woolley can be heard in the background in Patisopoulos's 911 call (I believe) and in the City TV film. He sounds hysterical rather than hoarse. Randy has suggested Hammond as the man with the hoarse voice but I disagree. He has a rather high voice. There is a plausible alternative suspect IOW. This is also relevant to point 4. The guy sporting knife wounds to his torso definitely was not Woolley or Fresh.


Here it is Clive:

While the pasta video might not show a knife in Ross Hammond’s hand because of its very poor resolution, there is also the possibility that he may have simply had it in his pocket at that point in time.

The main evidence for this idea is the blood stains found both on and in Hammond’s right rear pocket. In the trial transcript Attorney Scarfe and Sgt. Kearon discuss them. Scarfe tries to have the stains interpreted as deriving from a bloody object being inserted into the pocket. Kearon suggests that blood might have seeped through the outer layer of material to reach the inside of the pocket, but microscopic examination would be needed to determine which it was. As is frustratingly common in this case, such an examination should have been performed before the trial, and there is no indication of their having ever been any follow up on this issue.

If the stains are from Hammond placing the knife in his pocket prior to running through the pasta video, where did all of the blood come from so early in the sequence of events? He hasn’t sustained the wounds that would kill him yet.
I believe it is important here to know something about the knife the defense contends that Hammond took from Faith Watts. Court transcripts list it as a Leatherman 154cm. This is incorrect. 154cm is the type of steel used to make the blade and is thus stamped on it. It took me barely 5 minutes to email a photo of the knife to the good people of the Leatherman company, after which I received a prompt and courteous reply identifying the knife as retired model “e305x”. Again, this is an all too familiar example of the lack of thoroughness seen in this investigation.

The e305x is a folding pocket knife that utilizes the popular “liner lock” mechanism to keep the blade locked in the open position when deployed. This is nicely shown in this webpage: http://www.knivesplus.com/faqlinerlock.html. The critical point is that to close this type of knife, you would put the tip of your thumb across the opening that houses the blade in its closed position to push a steel band all the way against the outer wall of the handle. You must then partially close the blade before releasing the thumb pressure or else the blade will relock.

ltgknives-e304x-sid.jpg


From http://www.dougritter.com/pop_up_axis_lock.htm : “With a traditional liner lock, it is virtually impossible not to place the thumb across that opening to release the lock, the exception being some few knives with alternate operating mechanisms that haven't really caught on for a variety of reasons. I know many who have seriously cut themselves while closing these knives. Not as many as have cut themselves with non-locking knives, but it is a definite risk.”

It is absolutely vital that you move your thumb out of the way before closing the knife completely! If you failed to move your thumb entirely out of the way, you would slice off the tip. Most likely it would be just the skin, not all of the way to the bone. The cut would also tend to be at somewhat of angle such that it would remove more skin on outer side of the thumb than the inner, as you can verify looking the position of the thumb in the photos.

This is EXACTLY the wound that Ross Hammond sustained to his right thumb. I think it likely that he took the knife from Faith Watts just as she testified. As he then headed across the street, he slammed the knife closed and put it in his pocket. Drunk, angry and full of adrenaline, I doubt he even noticed what he’d done to himself. It seems to me too great a coincidence for this to have been a “defensive” wound. What happened to Hammond is just too exact a match to the type of injury I’ve described.

Nor could he have put the knife in his pocket after supposedly taking it from Nyki, as per the Crown’s scenario. Had that happened, Nyki’s blood would be mixed into the pocket stains with his. As we are well aware, no trace of Nyki’s DNA was ever found on Hammond.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:53 am

Anyone know how to insert a JPG image directly from my hard drive into a forum posting?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:36 am

leonmyerson wrote:Anyone know how to insert a JPG image directly from my hard drive into a forum posting?

Below there is are two tabs, one called "Options" with "Upload attachment" beside it. Use the "Upload attachment", then once uploaded, click the "Place inline" box above those two tabs in the comments.....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:20 am

Thanks Leon. Great post. I think that is one awesome point about the way he may have lost the tip of his thumb and one of many great insights you have brought to this case.

In fact, the whole case lacks any proper assessment of the injuries and their significance. Nyki's cut, for instance, is consistent, in my admittedly unqualified opinion, with someone raising their arm in front of their face to ward off a blow. It's not the sort of wound an aggressor gets. In fact, it is highly significant that Nyki has none of the wounds an attacker would normally get. We know Hammond fought with the person(s) trying to stab him because he has a tell tale cut to the web of one of his hands where he must have caught the blade. Yet Nyki has none of the corresponding scratches or cuts Steve Moore writes about. In fact, she had nothing at all to suggest involvement in any fight at all, let along the one described by various witnesses, including one where a female was on the ground underneath Hammond. Faith, OTOH, had an (unswabbed) bite on her arm right where it would be if she put her arm around your neck from behind and you bit her, plus all the DNA and blood spots high up her Doc Martins and on her shorts. Nyki also did not have any finger cuts like Rudy Guede and Jodi Arias acquired when they stabbed their victims and which Steve also says are typical.

The handicap to the defence of not having access to its own experts is immense and, in this case, practically decisive IMO.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:20 am

Bill Williams wrote:
leonmyerson wrote:Anyone know how to insert a JPG image directly from my hard drive into a forum posting?

Below there is are two tabs, one called "Options" with "Upload attachment" beside it. Use the "Upload attachment", then once uploaded, click the "Place inline" box above those two tabs in the comments.....

Or get a photobucket account and post the URL of the image.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:35 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Thanks Leon. Great post. I think that is one awesome point about the way he may have lost the tip of his thumb and one of many great insights you have brought to this case.

In fact, the whole case lacks any proper assessment of the injuries and their significance. Nyki's cut, for instance, is consistent, in my admittedly unqualified opinion, with someone raising their arm in front of their face to ward off a blow. It's not the sort of wound an aggressor gets. In fact, it is highly significant that Nyki has none of the wounds an attacker would normally get. We know Hammond fought with the person(s) trying to stab him because he has a tell tale cut to the web of one of his hands where he must have caught the blade. Yet Nyki has none of the corresponding scratches or cuts Steve Moore writes about. In fact, she had nothing at all to suggest involvement in any fight at all, let along the one described by various witnesses, including one where a female was on the ground underneath Hammond. Faith, OTOH, had an (unswabbed) bite on her arm right where it would be if she put her arm around your neck from behind and you bit her, plus all the DNA and blood spots high up her Doc Martins and on her shorts. Nyki also did not have any finger cuts like Rudy Guede and Jodi Arias acquired when they stabbed their victims and which Steve also says are typical.

The handicap to the defence of not having access to its own experts is immense and, in this case, practically decisive IMO.

Would having access to defence experts at this late date do any good? Could there be a commissioning of an expert to assess wounds and what they meant in a non-descript street melee?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:03 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Thanks Leon. Great post. I think that is one awesome point about the way he may have lost the tip of his thumb and one of many great insights you have brought to this case.

In fact, the whole case lacks any proper assessment of the injuries and their significance. Nyki's cut, for instance, is consistent, in my admittedly unqualified opinion, with someone raising their arm in front of their face to ward off a blow. It's not the sort of wound an aggressor gets. In fact, it is highly significant that Nyki has none of the wounds an attacker would normally get. We know Hammond fought with the person(s) trying to stab him because he has a tell tale cut to the web of one of his hands where he must have caught the blade. Yet Nyki has none of the corresponding scratches or cuts Steve Moore writes about. In fact, she had nothing at all to suggest involvement in any fight at all, let along the one described by various witnesses, including one where a female was on the ground underneath Hammond. Faith, OTOH, had an (unswabbed) bite on her arm right where it would be if she put her arm around your neck from behind and you bit her, plus all the DNA and blood spots high up her Doc Martins and on her shorts. Nyki also did not have any finger cuts like Rudy Guede and Jodi Arias acquired when they stabbed their victims and which Steve also says are typical.

The handicap to the defence of not having access to its own experts is immense and, in this case, practically decisive IMO.

Would having access to defence experts at this late date do any good? Could there be a commissioning of an expert to assess wounds and what they meant in a non-descript street melee?

The system is alien to me so I don't know. Jazz would. It should be open to this kind of thing, although I think the pasta vid point (that Hammond might be carrying the knife) is actually simpler and easier to get across as it knocks away a prop the appeal court rested its own 'improvement' of Nordheimer's verdict on (that, by elimination, only Nyki could have transported the knife across the street).
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Jewel » Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:45 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Thanks Leon. Great post. I think that is one awesome point about the way he may have lost the tip of his thumb and one of many great insights you have brought to this case.

In fact, the whole case lacks any proper assessment of the injuries and their significance. Nyki's cut, for instance, is consistent, in my admittedly unqualified opinion, with someone raising their arm in front of their face to ward off a blow. It's not the sort of wound an aggressor gets. In fact, it is highly significant that Nyki has none of the wounds an attacker would normally get. We know Hammond fought with the person(s) trying to stab him because he has a tell tale cut to the web of one of his hands where he must have caught the blade. Yet Nyki has none of the corresponding scratches or cuts Steve Moore writes about. In fact, she had nothing at all to suggest involvement in any fight at all, let along the one described by various witnesses, including one where a female was on the ground underneath Hammond. Faith, OTOH, had an (unswabbed) bite on her arm right where it would be if she put her arm around your neck from behind and you bit her, plus all the DNA and blood spots high up her Doc Martins and on her shorts. Nyki also did not have any finger cuts like Rudy Guede and Jodi Arias acquired when they stabbed their victims and which Steve also says are typical.

The handicap to the defence of not having access to its own experts is immense and, in this case, practically decisive IMO.

Would having access to defence experts at this late date do any good? Could there be a commissioning of an expert to assess wounds and what they meant in a non-descript street melee?

The system is alien to me so I don't know. Jazz would. It should be open to this kind of thing, although I think the pasta vid point (that Hammond might be carrying the knife) is actually simpler and easier to get across as it knocks away a prop the appeal court rested its own 'improvement' of Nordheimer's verdict on (that, by elimination, only Nyki could have transported the knife across the street).


It also casts doubt on the assertion that the injury on her arm had to be self inflicted.
User avatar
Jewel
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:17 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:39 pm

Jewel wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Thanks Leon. Great post. I think that is one awesome point about the way he may have lost the tip of his thumb and one of many great insights you have brought to this case.

In fact, the whole case lacks any proper assessment of the injuries and their significance. Nyki's cut, for instance, is consistent, in my admittedly unqualified opinion, with someone raising their arm in front of their face to ward off a blow. It's not the sort of wound an aggressor gets. In fact, it is highly significant that Nyki has none of the wounds an attacker would normally get. We know Hammond fought with the person(s) trying to stab him because he has a tell tale cut to the web of one of his hands where he must have caught the blade. Yet Nyki has none of the corresponding scratches or cuts Steve Moore writes about. In fact, she had nothing at all to suggest involvement in any fight at all, let along the one described by various witnesses, including one where a female was on the ground underneath Hammond. Faith, OTOH, had an (unswabbed) bite on her arm right where it would be if she put her arm around your neck from behind and you bit her, plus all the DNA and blood spots high up her Doc Martins and on her shorts. Nyki also did not have any finger cuts like Rudy Guede and Jodi Arias acquired when they stabbed their victims and which Steve also says are typical.

The handicap to the defence of not having access to its own experts is immense and, in this case, practically decisive IMO.

Would having access to defence experts at this late date do any good? Could there be a commissioning of an expert to assess wounds and what they meant in a non-descript street melee?

The system is alien to me so I don't know. Jazz would. It should be open to this kind of thing, although I think the pasta vid point (that Hammond might be carrying the knife) is actually simpler and easier to get across as it knocks away a prop the appeal court rested its own 'improvement' of Nordheimer's verdict on (that, by elimination, only Nyki could have transported the knife across the street).


It also casts doubt on the assertion that the injury on her arm had to be self inflicted.

Not sure I have seen that suggested anywhere TBH
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Christine Bivens » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:09 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I do not remember, what was the sequence of events concerning the stabbing? Who was the first stabbed Nyki or Hammond?
As far as I could read Nyki suffered an arterial cut? Is this correct?
Was the owner of the seized knife identified?
Are the CCTV somewhere available without restriction?

snip

Hammond was stabbed first, almost certainly. Nyki was probably the last to be stabbed as Hammond made his escape. Yes, it was an arterial cut to the forearm. The owner of the knife was Faith Watts. It was one of an identical pair she and Fresh had recently stolen in Montreal. The other one was on his person, unused. She admitted it was hers and testified at prelim (and by way of the recording of her prelim testimony which as admitted at trial) Hammond had snatched it from her immediately after she produced it. The Pasta did is online. Google 'Kish pasta vid' and you can watch it.


I believe Nyki was stabbed right after Mr. Hammond made his way to the North side. One of the few things that is clear in the pasta video is that there is a cut on the man's shirt that is in same location as the fatal stab wounds. Mr Hammond may well have been stabbed on the south side in front on the Galletelly's front door during the altercation witnessed by Paul Galletelly. Jeremy Woolley I think received the cut to his outer bicep after Nyki and the defence had no clear idea when and where the unknown male (hal) was wounded. My belief is based on looking at all the witness statements available and hours of defence debate but I am always open to fresh eyes on this
Christine Bivens
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:32 pm

Christine Bivens wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I do not remember, what was the sequence of events concerning the stabbing? Who was the first stabbed Nyki or Hammond?
As far as I could read Nyki suffered an arterial cut? Is this correct?
Was the owner of the seized knife identified?
Are the CCTV somewhere available without restriction?

snip

Hammond was stabbed first, almost certainly. Nyki was probably the last to be stabbed as Hammond made his escape. Yes, it was an arterial cut to the forearm. The owner of the knife was Faith Watts. It was one of an identical pair she and Fresh had recently stolen in Montreal. The other one was on his person, unused. She admitted it was hers and testified at prelim (and by way of the recording of her prelim testimony which as admitted at trial) Hammond had snatched it from her immediately after she produced it. The Pasta did is online. Google 'Kish pasta vid' and you can watch it.


I believe Nyki was stabbed right after Mr. Hammond made his way to the North side. One of the few things that is clear in the pasta video is that there is a cut on the man's shirt that is in same location as the fatal stab wounds. Mr Hammond may well have been stabbed on the south side in front on the Galletelly's front door during the altercation witnessed by Paul Galletelly. Jeremy Woolley I think received the cut to his outer bicep after Nyki and the defence had no clear idea when and where the unknown male (hal) was wounded. My belief is based on looking at all the witness statements available and hours of defence debate but I am always open to fresh eyes on this

Wouldn't that mean she spent about two-three minutes standing with the cut while a prolonged fight ensued? No one seems to have noticed her until Hammond decamped. And besides, Christine, hasn't Nyki told you when she was cut?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Christine Bivens » Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:04 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I do not remember, what was the sequence of events concerning the stabbing? Who was the first stabbed Nyki or Hammond?
As far as I could read Nyki suffered an arterial cut? Is this correct?
Was the owner of the seized knife identified?
Are the CCTV somewhere available without restriction?

snip

Hammond was stabbed first, almost certainly. Nyki was probably the last to be stabbed as Hammond made his escape. Yes, it was an arterial cut to the forearm. The owner of the knife was Faith Watts. It was one of an identical pair she and Fresh had recently stolen in Montreal. The other one was on his person, unused. She admitted it was hers and testified at prelim (and by way of the recording of her prelim testimony which as admitted at trial) Hammond had snatched it from her immediately after she produced it. The Pasta did is online. Google 'Kish pasta vid' and you can watch it.


I believe Nyki was stabbed right after Mr. Hammond made his way to the North side. One of the few things that is clear in the pasta video is that there is a cut on the man's shirt that is in same location as the fatal stab wounds. Mr Hammond may well have been stabbed on the south side in front on the Galletelly's front door during the altercation witnessed by Paul Galletelly. Jeremy Woolley I think received the cut to his outer bicep after Nyki and the defence had no clear idea when and where the unknown male (hal) was wounded. My belief is based on looking at all the witness statements available and hours of defence debate but I am always open to fresh eyes on this

Wouldn't that mean she spent about two-three minutes standing with the cut while a prolonged fight ensued? No one seems to have noticed her until Hammond decamped. And besides, Christine, hasn't Nyki told you when she was cut?


I believe there was about 2-3 minutes between Nyki being stabbed and the police arriving, I think after much review of the evidence there was only about 5 to seven minutes at Queen and Niagara where the events happened. I think it depends on what witness you believe. Nyki could have no reliable way to mark the time in an chaotic event after such a huge injury and so I have looked to the 911 calls and the times of police arrival to try and set timelines. I could be totally wrong. Everyone involved in a traumatic event, be it victims or eyewitness lose perspective of time, it is a very subjective thing. As no one who was watching this unfold saw anyone get stabbed, none of the 911 callers who were relaying real time information can help us pinpoint the moment Nyki was stabbed. My estimate is from the calls of Newman, Vasillious, the statement of C woods and the police notes on arrival times
Christine Bivens
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:15 pm

Christine Bivens wrote:
I believe there was about 2-3 minutes between Nyki being stabbed and the police arriving, I think after much review of the evidence there was only about 5 to seven minutes at Queen and Niagara where the events happened. I think it depends on what witness you believe. Nyki could have no reliable way to mark the time in an chaotic event after such a huge injury and so I have looked to the 911 calls and the times of police arrival to try and set timelines. I could be totally wrong. Everyone involved in a traumatic event, be it victims or eyewitness lose perspective of time, it is a very subjective thing. As no one who was watching this unfold saw anyone get stabbed, none of the 911 callers who were relaying real time information can help us pinpoint the moment Nyki was stabbed. My estimate is from the calls of Newman, Vasillious, the statement of C woods and the police notes on arrival times

I get it that she could not mark the time but not that she might not recall the order and circumstances in which things happened. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the timing of the arrival of the police on the scene to this particular question.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Christine Bivens » Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:19 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:
I believe there was about 2-3 minutes between Nyki being stabbed and the police arriving, I think after much review of the evidence there was only about 5 to seven minutes at Queen and Niagara where the events happened. I think it depends on what witness you believe. Nyki could have no reliable way to mark the time in an chaotic event after such a huge injury and so I have looked to the 911 calls and the times of police arrival to try and set timelines. I could be totally wrong. Everyone involved in a traumatic event, be it victims or eyewitness lose perspective of time, it is a very subjective thing. As no one who was watching this unfold saw anyone get stabbed, none of the 911 callers who were relaying real time information can help us pinpoint the moment Nyki was stabbed. My estimate is from the calls of Newman, Vasillious, the statement of C woods and the police notes on arrival times

I get it that she could not mark the time but not that she might not recall the order and circumstances in which things happened. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the timing of the arrival of the police on the scene to this particular question.


The arrival of the police gives a time stamp I can use when looking at the pasta video and the 911 call of Vasilliuos, not perfect but in the ballpark.
Christine Bivens
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:02 am

Christine Bivens wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:
I believe there was about 2-3 minutes between Nyki being stabbed and the police arriving, I think after much review of the evidence there was only about 5 to seven minutes at Queen and Niagara where the events happened. I think it depends on what witness you believe. Nyki could have no reliable way to mark the time in an chaotic event after such a huge injury and so I have looked to the 911 calls and the times of police arrival to try and set timelines. I could be totally wrong. Everyone involved in a traumatic event, be it victims or eyewitness lose perspective of time, it is a very subjective thing. As no one who was watching this unfold saw anyone get stabbed, none of the 911 callers who were relaying real time information can help us pinpoint the moment Nyki was stabbed. My estimate is from the calls of Newman, Vasillious, the statement of C woods and the police notes on arrival times

I get it that she could not mark the time but not that she might not recall the order and circumstances in which things happened. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the timing of the arrival of the police on the scene to this particular question.


The arrival of the police gives a time stamp I can use when looking at the pasta video and the 911 call of Vasilliuos, not perfect but in the ballpark.

OK. Who is C Woods?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Christine Bivens » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:15 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:

The arrival of the police gives a time stamp I can use when looking at the pasta video and the 911 call of Vasilliuos, not perfect but in the ballpark.

OK. Who is C Woods?


C. Woods is a woman who just finished worked at a bar on Queen street and heard the screaming and ran over to help Nyki. She stayed at the scene and gave the police a brief statement, the police never contacted her for follow up. I also have an audio only copy of her interview with our private detective.

From Memo Book

Q- What happened?

A-They were all running westbound and one girl was screaming that she’d been hit by the guys there were two of them. They’re stopping traffic. I think the street guys wanted to get on the bus and I think the preppy kids wanted on the bus too because no taxis were available. I heard “ I’ve been stabbed”, I guess her boyfriend and another guy really started beating up the guy with the knife. He is trying to get away in a cab. He grabs onto the side door of the taxi. The knife had a hooked blade, saber tooth-like. The blade was about the size of my hand, (cups hand into a “c”).
I didn’t see the handle. That’s when you guys showed up.

Q-How many street kids and how many preppy kids were there?

A-From what I counted, two preppy guys and five street kids

Q-What did the suspects look like?

A-Preppy, hiphopish, dressed in a grey pinstriped shirt, it was ripped. He had on jeans. Mid twenties, maybe Armanian. He was bleeding too. There were big holes in it. He grabbed onto the side of the taxi and dragged westbound.

Q-The other suspect?

A-Ah tall, didn’t get a look at him. He ran west.

Q-Anything else?

A-That’s it

Q-Please sign below if all is correct

0117 @ Queen s/w out front of 734
Christine Bivens
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 am

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:38 am

Christine Bivens wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:

The arrival of the police gives a time stamp I can use when looking at the pasta video and the 911 call of Vasilliuos, not perfect but in the ballpark.

OK. Who is C Woods?


C. Woods is a woman who just finished worked at a bar on Queen street and heard the screaming and ran over to help Nyki. She stayed at the scene and gave the police a brief statement, the police never contacted her for follow up. I also have an audio only copy of her interview with our private detective.

From Memo Book

Q- What happened?

A-They were all running westbound and one girl was screaming that she’d been hit by the guys there were two of them. They’re stopping traffic. I think the street guys wanted to get on the bus and I think the preppy kids wanted on the bus too because no taxis were available. I heard “ I’ve been stabbed”, I guess her boyfriend and another guy really started beating up the guy with the knife. He is trying to get away in a cab. He grabs onto the side door of the taxi. The knife had a hooked blade, saber tooth-like. The blade was about the size of my hand, (cups hand into a “c”).
I didn’t see the handle. That’s when you guys showed up.

Q-How many street kids and how many preppy kids were there?

A-From what I counted, two preppy guys and five street kids

Q-What did the suspects look like?

A-Preppy, hiphopish, dressed in a grey pinstriped shirt, it was ripped. He had on jeans. Mid twenties, maybe Armanian. He was bleeding too. There were big holes in it. He grabbed onto the side of the taxi and dragged westbound.

Q-The other suspect?

A-Ah tall, didn’t get a look at him. He ran west.

Q-Anything else?

A-That’s it

Q-Please sign below if all is correct

0117 @ Queen s/w out front of 734

Thanks Christine. That's useful in several respects, isn't it? When did you dig her up?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby LarryK » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:22 am

Since Hannah Overton's case was just dismissed, I will add Nyki's to those I follow more closely now. I won't be able to do much outside work however.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:31 am

LarryK wrote:Since Hannah Overton's case was just dismissed, I will add Nyki's to those I follow more closely now. I won't be able to do much outside work however.

More the merrier, Larry. If you have any questions, fire away.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:16 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
LarryK wrote:Since Hannah Overton's case was just dismissed, I will add Nyki's to those I follow more closely now. I won't be able to do much outside work however.

More the merrier, Larry. If you have any questions, fire away.

What this case needs is a good guilter. From where I sit, there simply is no compelling case to be made against Nyki; but as the Raffaele Sollecito/Amanda Knox case showed, there's nothing like a good, articulate guilter to push away at the edges. On one of the facebook cases on yet another case, one of the investigating detectives waded into the fray (was it the Russ Faria case?).

The thing which allows this case to be reasoned out better is that the Nordheimer and Appeals' Court reasons for judgement are out there. If this had been a jury trial, in Canada no one would have ever known the reasons for conviction. Nordheimer, in my opinion, puts out a very unbelievable reason for convicting. Christine has also been diligent in getting non-trial related stuff, including some of the sworn depositions of people who ever made it to trial.

So, LarryK, ask away. Still.... we need a good guilter here.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:57 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
LarryK wrote:Since Hannah Overton's case was just dismissed, I will add Nyki's to those I follow more closely now. I won't be able to do much outside work however.

More the merrier, Larry. If you have any questions, fire away.

What this case needs is a good guilter. From where I sit, there simply is no compelling case to be made against Nyki; but as the Raffaele Sollecito/Amanda Knox case showed, there's nothing like a good, articulate guilter to push away at the edges. On one of the facebook cases on yet another case, one of the investigating detectives waded into the fray (was it the Russ Faria case?).

The thing which allows this case to be reasoned out better is that the Nordheimer and Appeals' Court reasons for judgement are out there. If this had been a jury trial, in Canada no one would have ever known the reasons for conviction. Nordheimer, in my opinion, puts out a very unbelievable reason for convicting. Christine has also been diligent in getting non-trial related stuff, including some of the sworn depositions of people who ever made it to trial.

So, LarryK, ask away. Still.... we need a good guilter here.


I doubt he would be interested in posting here but I could PM the crown prosecutor I have talked a bit about the case to and see if he would join the discussion here.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:19 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
LarryK wrote:Since Hannah Overton's case was just dismissed, I will add Nyki's to those I follow more closely now. I won't be able to do much outside work however.

More the merrier, Larry. If you have any questions, fire away.

What this case needs is a good guilter. From where I sit, there simply is no compelling case to be made against Nyki; but as the Raffaele Sollecito/Amanda Knox case showed, there's nothing like a good, articulate guilter to push away at the edges. On one of the facebook cases on yet another case, one of the investigating detectives waded into the fray (was it the Russ Faria case?).

The thing which allows this case to be reasoned out better is that the Nordheimer and Appeals' Court reasons for judgement are out there. If this had been a jury trial, in Canada no one would have ever known the reasons for conviction. Nordheimer, in my opinion, puts out a very unbelievable reason for convicting. Christine has also been diligent in getting non-trial related stuff, including some of the sworn depositions of people who ever made it to trial.

So, LarryK, ask away. Still.... we need a good guilter here.


I doubt he would be interested in posting here but I could PM the crown prosecutor I have talked a bit about the case to and see if he would join the discussion here.

I highly doubt such a thing would be permissible but it sure would be interesting.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:56 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
LarryK wrote:Since Hannah Overton's case was just dismissed, I will add Nyki's to those I follow more closely now. I won't be able to do much outside work however.

More the merrier, Larry. If you have any questions, fire away.

What this case needs is a good guilter. From where I sit, there simply is no compelling case to be made against Nyki; but as the Raffaele Sollecito/Amanda Knox case showed, there's nothing like a good, articulate guilter to push away at the edges. On one of the facebook cases on yet another case, one of the investigating detectives waded into the fray (was it the Russ Faria case?).

The thing which allows this case to be reasoned out better is that the Nordheimer and Appeals' Court reasons for judgement are out there. If this had been a jury trial, in Canada no one would have ever known the reasons for conviction. Nordheimer, in my opinion, puts out a very unbelievable reason for convicting. Christine has also been diligent in getting non-trial related stuff, including some of the sworn depositions of people who ever made it to trial.

So, LarryK, ask away. Still.... we need a good guilter here.


I doubt he would be interested in posting here but I could PM the crown prosecutor I have talked a bit about the case to and see if he would join the discussion here.

I highly doubt such a thing would be permissible but it sure would be interesting.

Still - it was astounding to see one of the junior prosecutors mix it up on FB with one of the cases there.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:29 pm

Think I missed that.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:53 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Think I missed that.

From the Russ Faria *Endorsed thread, Nov 8 2014:

Jesus, Mary and Joseph save us all.

One of the Faria prosecutors is now in a FaceBook debate with Michael Corbin; once again insinuating that Corbin has something to hide in his alibi for Russ Faria. And this prosecutor is giving alibi witness for Pam Hupp!!!!! On friggin' FaceBook!

It's now official. The Faria wrongful conviction takes the cake. First an extra-marital affair between prosecutor and lead detective, and now this.

What a complete farce.

You can't make up this stuff. No one would believe you.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:11 pm

Wow
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:37 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Wow

Just wow.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:17 pm

DaveET wrote:Also, both Nordheimer in his justification and the appeal court accept that it is possible Nyki was not the stabber, in fact if I recall correctly the appeal court even sugggested Woolley as a possible alternative. Plenty of BARD there. Which leaves carrying the knife.........for which the evidence is.......the testimony of Stopford, who identified Watts not Nyki and the wonderful imagination of the judge who believed it more likely that the high on drugs, drunk as a skunk, fiercely combative Watts was more likely to stay and comfort her stricken boyfriend.

As Bill is want to say, about this bridge I have for sale.........yes I know, I read these threads a lot more than I write in them!


Justice Macfarland of the appeals court actually contradicts herself and almost in the next paragraph makes a major error of fact. First she says that implying that Woolley might have done it is "without foundation", and shortly thereafter she attributes the cry of "You die tonight!" to Woolley. As for the error, witness Cam Bourdignon, the only source for "You die tonight" NEVER attributed it to anyone in particular. It might have been Hammond for all we know. She also seem to try to revive the "participant" version of the charges, though I'm not at all sure an appeals judge should be doing that with a charge the trial judge rejected.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:52 am

leonmyerson wrote:
DaveET wrote:Also, both Nordheimer in his justification and the appeal court accept that it is possible Nyki was not the stabber, in fact if I recall correctly the appeal court even sugggested Woolley as a possible alternative. Plenty of BARD there. Which leaves carrying the knife.........for which the evidence is.......the testimony of Stopford, who identified Watts not Nyki and the wonderful imagination of the judge who believed it more likely that the high on drugs, drunk as a skunk, fiercely combative Watts was more likely to stay and comfort her stricken boyfriend.

As Bill is want to say, about this bridge I have for sale.........yes I know, I read these threads a lot more than I write in them!


Justice Macfarland of the appeals court actually contradicts herself and almost in the next paragraph makes a major error of fact. First she says that implying that Woolley might have done it is "without foundation", and shortly thereafter she attributes the cry of "You die tonight!" to Woolley. As for the error, witness Cam Bourdignon, the only source for "You die tonight" NEVER attributed it to anyone in particular. It might have been Hammond for all we know. She also seem to try to revive the "participant" version of the charges, though I'm not at all sure an appeals judge should be doing that with a charge the trial judge rejected.

I am guessing that MacFarland had fallen prey to the notion that there were only 6 people involved in this whole affair so that, by elimination, Woolley was the only one who could have said 'you die tonight' since he was male and since Fresh was out for the count on the sidewalk. IMO not enough was done to counter this pernicious idea.'
Clive Wismayer
 

PreviousNext

Return to Nyki Kish Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest