Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:49 pm

Zrausch wrote:
european neighbour wrote:They are crazy!
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 7b590.html


How does this fit in with the narrative that Raff's family can control the courts with a few phone calls or w/e.

Why pay 1M Euros to get 500,000?
    “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: 8006
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:11 pm

european neighbour wrote:They are crazy!
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 7b590.html


While obviously this denial of compensation is wrong and harmful, this action by the CSC allows elements of the case to be reviewed by the ECHR for conformity to the rights listed in the Convention. This review would give greater public exposure to some of the wrongful actions of the Italian authorities in this case.

Here are relevant clauses in Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights:

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

While obviously this denial of compensation is wrong and harmful, this action by the CSC allows elements of the case to be reviewed for conformity to the rights listed in the Convention. This review would give greater public exposure to some of the wrongful actions of the Italian authorities in this case.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:37 am

A summary of the ECHR judgment in the case of Lorefice v. Italy, finding a violation of Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The judgment is available only in French.

There is relevance to the Italian courts' attempts to use statements from Guede against Amanda and Raffaele without hearing Guede's testimony or allowing his cross-examination (he refused to testify as allowed by law). There is also relevance in the Chieffi CSC panel and Nencini court overturning the Hellmann court negative evaluation of the credibility of prosecution witnesses including Curatolo and Quintavalle.

Here is the summary:

Violation of the right to a fair trial for a person who was convicted by the appeal court without the prosecution witnesses having been heard in person

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Lorefice v. Italy (application no. 63446/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights

The case concerned Mr Lorefice’s complaint concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings which had resulted in his conviction by a court of appeal. Mr Lorefice was initially acquitted, as the first-instance court found that the statements made by two witnesses were imprecise, illogical and incoherent, and that the evidence given by one of them
was not credible.

Mr Lorefice was then convicted by the court of appeal on the basis of the same witness statements, without the witnesses having been reheard. In establishing Mr Lorefice’s guilt, the appeal court instead examined the witness statements as they had been recorded in the transcripts included in the case file.

The Court found in particular that the court of appeal’s failure to rehear evidence from these two witnesses and/or other witnesses before setting aside the lower court’s judgment acquitting Mr Lorefice had compromised the fairness of his trial.

The Court reiterated that those with responsibility for deciding on a defendant’s guilt or innocence ought, in principle, to hear oral testimony from witnesses in person and to assess their credibility.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:26 pm

Numbers wrote:A summary of the ECHR judgment in the case of Lorefice v. Italy, finding a violation of Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The judgment is available only in French.

There is relevance to the Italian courts' attempts to use statements from Guede against Amanda and Raffaele without hearing Guede's testimony or allowing his cross-examination (he refused to testify as allowed by law). There is also relevance in the Chieffi CSC panel and Nencini court overturning the Hellmann court negative evaluation of the credibility of prosecution witnesses including Curatolo and Quintavalle.

Here is the summary:

Violation of the right to a fair trial for a person who was convicted by the appeal court without the prosecution witnesses having been heard in person

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Lorefice v. Italy (application no. 63446/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights

The case concerned Mr Lorefice’s complaint concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings which had resulted in his conviction by a court of appeal. Mr Lorefice was initially acquitted, as the first-instance court found that the statements made by two witnesses were imprecise, illogical and incoherent, and that the evidence given by one of them
was not credible.

Mr Lorefice was then convicted by the court of appeal on the basis of the same witness statements, without the witnesses having been reheard. In establishing Mr Lorefice’s guilt, the appeal court instead examined the witness statements as they had been recorded in the transcripts included in the case file.

The Court found in particular that the court of appeal’s failure to rehear evidence from these two witnesses and/or other witnesses before setting aside the lower court’s judgment acquitting Mr Lorefice had compromised the fairness of his trial.

The Court reiterated that those with responsibility for deciding on a defendant’s guilt or innocence ought, in principle, to hear oral testimony from witnesses in person and to assess their credibility.


Regarding the Italian courts' attempt to use the statements of Guede, not subjected to cross-examination, the ECHR case law of LUCÀ v. ITALY 33354/96 27/02/2001 also applies. That case summarizes the changes in Italian law and Constitution - changes that were at first resisted by the Italian Constitutional Court - that prohibit such un-examined statements from a witness or co-defendant to be used against an accused. The Marasca CSC panel MR pointed out this violation of Italian law. The judgment Luca v. Italy is available in English on HUDOC.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby LondonJohn » Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:18 pm

On the Sollecito appeal denial, TJMK points heavily towards a (very poorly written and loaded with bias) article from an obscure web news site, written by one "Krissy Allen":

http://uk.blastingnews.com/world/2017/0 ... 10185.html

I wonder......just wonder...... if "Krissy Allen" is a pseudonym for someone we know rather well? No, surely not!!!
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:20 am

LondonJohn wrote:On the Sollecito appeal denial, TJMK points heavily towards a (very poorly written and loaded with bias) article from an obscure web news site, written by one "Krissy Allen":

http://uk.blastingnews.com/world/2017/0 ... 10185.html

I wonder......just wonder...... if "Krissy Allen" is a pseudonym for someone we know rather well? No, surely not!!!


Have not been in here in some time, RS was denied compensation, and failed again on appeal?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:00 am

anonshy wrote:
LondonJohn wrote:On the Sollecito appeal denial, TJMK points heavily towards a (very poorly written and loaded with bias) article from an obscure web news site, written by one "Krissy Allen":

http://uk.blastingnews.com/world/2017/0 ... 10185.html

I wonder......just wonder...... if "Krissy Allen" is a pseudonym for someone we know rather well? No, surely not!!!


Have not been in here in some time, RS was denied compensation, and failed again on appeal?

Anon


Yes. The CSC decision was a final domestic (national) court decision. His lawyer is quoted in a news article as saying that they will take the case for compensation to the ECHR:

" "Il risarcimento che è stato negato a Raffaele poteva e doveva essere il giusto ristoro per l'ingiusta detenzione subita. Ma questo non scalfisce in alcun modo la sua innocenza", il commento del suo difensore, l'avvocato Giulia Bongiorno.
"Ricorreremo alla Corte europea - ha aggiunto - e non ci fermeremo"."

Google translation:

""The reparation {compensation} that was denied to Raffaele could and should be the right refreshment {relief, solace, restoration} for the unjust imprisonment, but this does not alter his innocence in any way," commented his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno.
"We will resort to the European Court," she added, "and we will not stop.""

Source: http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 7b590.html
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:36 pm

european neighbour
 
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Lince » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:31 am

european neighbour wrote:Nice interview:
http://www.livewireradio.org/episode342

A great one. Amanda seems much more comfortable doing interviews now (maybe it is also because it is a radio interview).
Lince
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:23 am
Location: Finland/Lithuania

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:19 am

Lince wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Nice interview:
http://www.livewireradio.org/episode342

A great one. Amanda seems much more comfortable doing interviews now (maybe it is also because it is a radio interview).

She's older, also now part of an extended network of exonerees. She's keeping her promise made when acquitted.
    “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: 8006
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:02 am

Bill Williams wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Nice interview:
http://www.livewireradio.org/episode342


She's keeping her promise made when acquitted.


To European & Bill

Thanks European for the information and I really enjoy listing to it, and course Bill! Amanda will always keep her promise, and I don't blame her even the stupid site of TJMK still never learn anything into a court of law or they never care to read a novel!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4461
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:12 am

european neighbour wrote:Nice interview:
http://www.livewireradio.org/episode342


This an outstanding interview. Exonerees face a life of struggle long after they are released.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Samson » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:28 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Nice interview:
http://www.livewireradio.org/episode342


This an outstanding interview. Exonerees face a life of struggle long after they are released.

I am also thinking of Sarah Pierce. I think she must pay $50 a month to a woman whose daughter was murdered, and she had nothing to do with it. If she fails to pay she is recalled to jail.
From my memory bank, but a terrible injustice if I have my facts correct. There is a litany of carnage following all these cases, probably a fresh thread subject.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:22 am

european neighbour wrote:Nice interview:
http://www.livewireradio.org/episode342


Just listened to it. . . .I note a passing remark about trying to force people to convert. Based on that, I believe she is still an atheist.
If she was up to it, I would love to see her talk to the guys on "Ask an Atheist" on the subject of being an atheist in prison.
They are also local to her, being in the Seattle area. To be honest, I would love to move to the Seattle area myself.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:30 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Nice interview:
http://www.livewireradio.org/episode342


Just listened to it. . . .I note a passing remark about trying to force people to convert. Based on that, I believe she is still an atheist.
If she was up to it, I would love to see her talk to the guys on "Ask an Atheist" on the subject of being an atheist in prison.
They are also local to her, being in the Seattle area. To be honest, I would love to move to the Seattle area myself.

That is a problem in prison life, particularly with A.A. programs. A.A. programs are by their nature religious (more properly, "theistic") and the problem comes if and when a court makes participation a condition of sentence.

The US Supreme Court once ruled against that practise, but my understanding is that it still continues.

Wikipedia wrote:United States courts have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed a religion, it was ruled that it contained enough religious components (variously described in Griffin v. Coughlin below as, inter alia, "religion", "religious activity", "religious exercise") to make coerced attendance at AA meetings a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution. In 2007, the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that a parolee who was ordered to attend AA had standing to sue his parole office.


Be that as it may, Knox's comments here and in other places about coerced participation in religious practise in prison is quite spot on. Indeed, her own reported relationship with the Capanne prison chaplain is a model of mutual respect where each allowed the other to use the language appropriate to their beliefs.
    “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: 8006
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:25 pm

'Ryan Ferguson, the Columbia man released from prison in 2013 when his conviction was thrown out after he was jailed 10 years for murder, won an $11 million judgment in federal court Monday. ....

"You are always fighting to prove your innocence, still, because a lot of people don’t know the documentation but the cloud is there because, with my case and many other cases, we’ve seen that police and prosecutors will take the lives of innocent people and they don’t care,” Ferguson said.'

Source: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/201 ... ts-lawsuit
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:27 am

abstract I just found this paper this morning, and all I have had a chance to do is to skim it. Looks interesting.

"DNA transfer-a never ending story. A study on scenarios involving a second person as carrier."
Conclusion: "This study proves the possibility of transfer of one person’s DNA (donor) from one item to another by a second person (carrier), i.e., a tertiary transfer, since in 40 % of all 180 samples such a transfer could be demonstrated. Our results underline once again the need to interpret DNA results from crime scenes with great care. DNA can be virtually transferred in so many different manners that it may be impossible to determine the way by which it was deposited on a distinct item, even if it is no problem to identify the DNA donor. Especially textiles turned out to be an excellent material for absorbing and releasing DNA."
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:09 am

Here's a recent ECHR case finding a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6.1, because a conviction was based on arbitrary or improper reasoning in which an important defense argument was ignored by the courts. This case-law is relevant to the Italian courts convicting Amanda Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba because that conviction was also based on a failure to logically and objectively refute reasonable defense arguments, although the ECHR may for simplicity examine only the issues of coercion and denial of legal representation during the interrogation.

This is the summary of the recent case:

Nikolay Genov v. Bulgaria (no. 7202/09) {13 July 2017}

The applicant, Nikolay Dimitrov Genov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). The case concerned his complaint that the courts had failed to consider his case fairly during criminal proceedings against him.

In 2008 Mr Genov was convicted for having acquired counterfeit US dollars. The court ruled that he had acquired the notes at some time between March 2005 (when such possession was first criminalised) and January 2007 (when the notes were found in a search of his house). However, at trial, evidence had been given suggesting that Mr Genov had acquired US dollars in 2002 (before the possession of counterfeit notes was criminalised), and also in subsequent years. Mr Genov appealed his conviction, claiming that it had never been established that he had taken possession of the counterfeit notes at a time when this had been a criminal offence. However, both of his appeals were dismissed.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Genov complained that the domestic courts had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had carried out the offence at a time when it had been unlawful.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Here is an excerpt from the judgment giving more details of the ECHR reasoning:

32. However, the Court is not satisfied that the domestic courts gave a sufficiently reasoned answer to the argument at issue. Even though the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal restated in their summaries of the relevant facts what the applicant had said, namely that in 2002 his brother had given him money to buy US dollars, they did not analyse that statement or indicate whether they considered it credible. More importantly, they did not explain why and on the basis of what evidence they considered that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit bank notes much later, namely after 26 March 2005 (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). Apart from the statements of the applicant and his brother, no evidence was collected concerning that question. It appears that the courts merely “adjusted” the time when the offence must have been committed, correcting the time initially indicated in the indictment (see paragraph 7 above), to take into account the date on which such an offence had been criminalised.

33. Nor did the Supreme Court of Cassation comment on the argument at issue, even though the applicant clearly raised it in his appeal on points of law (see paragraphs 14-15 above).

34. The Court therefore concludes that the domestic courts failed to give sufficiently reasoned judgments, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

35. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:20 am

Netflix docu "Amanda Knox" is nominated for the Emmy Award 2017 in the category Best Documentary or Nonfiction Special:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/ ... 17-1018828
european neighbour
 
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:42 am

european neighbour wrote:Netflix docu "Amanda Knox" is nominated for the Emmy Award 2017 in the category Best Documentary or Nonfiction Special:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/ ... 17-1018828

With the admissions that both Mignini and Pisa made in the documentary, why are there ANY guilters left?

Like people have said, even if it was revealed that Rudy Guede had worn a body-cam on the night of Nov 1, 2007, and it showed him climbing in Filomena's window, sitting on the crapper, and then (by himself, like the forensics show) attacking the victim - there'd STILL be nutcases out there saying.....

..... "Knox is not telling us everything she knows."
    “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: 8006
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Zrausch » Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:37 am

european neighbour wrote:Netflix docu "Amanda Knox" is nominated for the Emmy Award 2017 in the category Best Documentary or Nonfiction Special:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/ ... 17-1018828


It's funny to think that from Harry Rag's point of view they made a documentary about how evil the prosecutor who tried to put the female Ted Bundy away was and everyone loved it. He must just be dumbfounded about this case 24/7. It's an interesting direct look into the unstoppable power of cognitive biases. Reality is not an objective frame of reference for each person.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:24 pm

The legal question regarding Raffaele Sollecito's request for compensation, and the final denial thereof by the Italian judicial system, is whether that denial was reasonable, fair and legal under the Italian Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights (including ECHR case law). Significant issues relating to that include the fairness or lack of fairness (arbitrariness) of the evaluation of evidence by the Italian courts deciding on compensation, and the legality under Italian and international law (the Convention and ECHR case law) of Sollecito's arrest and detention.

Regarding the likely next step in Sollecito's claim for compensation for unfair detention, his lawyer was quoted as stating she will take the case to the ECHR. Compensation for arrest and/or detention which violates the requirements listed in Convention Article 5 as determined by the ECHR (for example, in its existing case law) is required under the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 5.5*, as well as Italian Constitution Article 24 and CPP Article 314. Assuming that Sollecito and his lawyer(s) submit an application to the ECHR claiming that Italy violated his Convention rights by unfairly denying him compensation (likely to be complaints of violations of Article 5 and Article 6), it will be the eventual judgment of the ECHR that will determine Italy's actions according to international law (Italy's treaty obligations).

Sollecito's potential case against Italy for a violation of his Convention rights for the denial of compensation for unfair detention (under Convention Articles 5 and 6) would in all probability not be judged until after Knox v. Italy 76577/13 was final. Since the “reasoning” for Sollecito's arrest and detention and for the denial of compensation to Sollecito was based in part on the false allegations that were made against Amanda Knox, an ECHR judgment in her favor would likely be helpful to his case. A judgment in her favor is highly likely, based on ECHR case law.

* A quick search for cases involving a claimed violation of Convention Article 5.5 in HUDOC shows a listing of 226 ECHR judgments.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:56 am

european neighbour wrote:Netflix docu "Amanda Knox" is nominated for the Emmy Award 2017 in the category Best Documentary or Nonfiction Special:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/ ... 17-1018828


To European

Thanks European, for the information and in my own opinion. I am thrill that Amanda Knox got nominated in the Emmy awards. But I am not happy that Big Bang Theory is not nominated and I am a huge fan of that show. They got screw big time even I truly think they should get nominated, even I already saw the Documentary 5 times!!!

So I am going to root for Strangers Things & Amanda Knox to win it all the way!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4461
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:54 pm

An interesting article discussing the role of media in such cases as Bossetti, Stasi, Knox & Sollecito.

Translated page......

goo.gl/wKwTpU

( Copy and paste the url into browser, not sure why it wont link direct!)

Edited by a Moderator.
This one should work:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fagenziaradicale.com%2Findex.php%2Frubriche%2Fstile-libero%2F4731-quanto-pesa-la-pressione-mediatica-sui-processi-il-caso-bossetti-condannato-anche-in-appello&edit-text=
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:54 pm

Recently the CSC delivered a final judgment denying Raffaele Sollecito compensation for unfair detention; acquitted persons are generally entitled to such compensation under CPP Article 314. According to a media report quoting his lawyer, Raffaele may bring a case before the ECHR claiming that this denial of compensation was a violation of his Convention rights by Italy.

This post gives some information on ECHR case-law that may apply to that potential case.

A first consideration is that the final judgment denying the compensation may be arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned. Arbitrary reasoning in a judgment which denies someone a deserved benefit or results in a criminal conviction is a violation of Convention Article 6.1 (case law includes, for example, Grădinar v. Moldova 7170/02 and Genov v. Bulgaria 7202/09). Another aspect of this approach is whether the CSC used "judicial facts" that were not supported by real facts, or were based on statements generated in an interrogation of a suspect who was denied a lawyer or subjected to coercion.

But a second approach relies on claiming a violation of Convention Article 6.2, the presumption of innocence. After an acquittal, the former accused continues to be considered innocent of the charges for which he was acquitted, and compensation hearings are tied to the acquittal decision under Italian law and are thus considered an extension of the criminal trial by the ECHR, and the presumption of innocence must therefore be preserved. This approach is outlined in the following excerpt from Allen v. the United Kingdom 25424/09 12/07/2013 (inline references deleted); of particular interest are paragraphs 98 b, c, and d, 100, and 102 - 107. As a further point, the scope of "presumption of innocence" may be of interest to some (paragraphs 93 and 94):

(i) Introduction

92. The object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of human beings, requires that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective. The Court has expressly stated that this applies to the right enshrined in Article 6 § 2.

93. Article 6 § 2 safeguards the right to be “presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. Viewed as a procedural guarantee in the context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia, the burden of proof; legal presumptions of fact and law; the privilege against self-incrimination; pre-trial publicity; and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant’s guilt.

94. However, in keeping with the need to ensure that the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 is practical and effective, the presumption of innocence also has another aspect. Its general aim, in this second aspect, is to protect individuals who have been acquitted of a criminal charge, or in respect of whom criminal proceedings have been discontinued, from being treated by public officials and authorities as though they are in fact guilty of the offence charged. In these cases, the presumption of innocence has already operated, through the application at trial of the various requirements inherent in the procedural guarantee it affords, to prevent an unfair criminal conviction being imposed. Without protection to ensure respect for the acquittal or the discontinuation decision in any other proceedings, the fair-trial guarantees of Article 6 § 2 could risk becoming theoretical and illusory. What is also at stake once the criminal proceedings have concluded is the person’s reputation and the way in which that person is perceived by the public. To a certain extent, the protection afforded under Article 6 § 2 in this respect may overlap with the protection afforded by Article 8.

(ii) Applicability of Article 6 § 2

95. As expressly stated in the terms of the Article itself, Article 6 § 2 applies where a person is “charged with a criminal offence”. The Court has repeatedly emphasised that this is an autonomous concept and must be interpreted according to the three criteria set out in its case-law, namely the classification of the proceedings in domestic law, their essential nature, and the degree of severity of the potential penalty. To evaluate any complaint under Article 6 § 2 arising in the context of judicial proceedings, it is first of all necessary to ascertain whether the impugned proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law.

96. However, in cases involving the second aspect of the protection afforded by Article 6 § 2, which arises when criminal proceedings have terminated, it is clear that the application of the foregoing test is inappropriate. In these cases, the criminal proceedings have, by necessity, been concluded and unless the subsequent judicial proceedings give rise to a new criminal charge within the Convention’s autonomous meaning, if Article 6 § 2 is engaged, it must be engaged on different grounds.

97. The parties did not suggest that the compensation proceedings brought by the applicant gave rise to a “criminal charge”, within the autonomous meaning of the Convention. It is therefore the second aspect of the protection afforded by Article 6 § 2 which is in play in the present case; and the Court will accordingly examine how it has approached the applicability of Article 6 § 2 to subsequent judicial proceedings in such cases.

98.The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia:
(a) a former accused’s obligation to bear court costs and prosecution costs;
(b) a former accused’s request for compensation for detention on remand or other inconvenience caused by the criminal proceedings;
(c) a former accused’s request for defence costs;
(d) a former accused’s request for compensation for damage caused by an unlawful or wrongful investigation or prosecution;

(e) the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim;
(f) the refusal of civil claims lodged by the applicant against insurers;
(g) the maintenance in force of a child care order, after the prosecution decided not to bring charges against the parent for child abuse;
(h) disciplinary or dismissal issues; and
(i) the revocation of the applicant’s right to social housing.

99. In a number of these cases, the Court found in favour of the applicability of Article 6 § 2. Explaining why Article 6 § 2 applied despite the absence of a pending criminal charge in a trio of early cases, the Court said that the rulings on the applicants’ entitlement to costs and compensation were “consequences and necessary concomitants of”, or “a direct sequel to”, the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Similarly, in a later series of cases, the Court concluded that Austrian legislation and practice “link[ed] the two questions – the criminal responsibility of the accused and the right to compensation – to such a degree that the decision on the latter issue could be regarded as a consequence and, to some extent, the concomitant of the decision on the former”, resulting in the applicability of Article 6 § 2 to the compensation proceedings.

100. Developing this idea in subsequent cases, the Court found that the applicants’ compensation claim “not only followed the criminal proceedings in time, but was also tied to those proceedings in legislation and practice, with regard to both jurisdiction and subject matter”, creating a link between the two sets of proceedings with the result that Article 6 § 2 was applicable.

101. In cases concerning the victim’s right to compensation from the applicant, who had previously been found not guilty of the criminal charge, the Court held that where the decision on civil compensation contained a statement imputing criminal liability, this would create a link between the two proceedings such as to engage Article 6 § 2 in respect of the judgment on the compensation claim.

102. More recently, the Court has expressed the view that following discontinuation of criminal proceedings the presumption of innocence requires that the lack of a person’s criminal conviction be preserved in any other proceedings of whatever nature. It has also indicated that the operative part of an acquittal judgment must be respected by any authority referring directly or indirectly to the criminal responsibility of the interested party.
(iii) Conclusion

103. ... the Court would formulate the principle of the presumption of innocence in this context as follows: the presumption of innocence means that where there has been a criminal charge and criminal proceedings have ended in an acquittal, the person who was the subject of the criminal proceedings is innocent in the eyes of the law and must be treated in a manner consistent with that innocence. To this extent, therefore, the presumption of innocence will remain after the conclusion of criminal proceedings in order to ensure that, as regards any charge which was not proven, the innocence of the person in question is respected. This overriding concern lies at the root of the Court’s approach to the applicability of Article 6 § 2 in these cases.

104. Whenever the question of the applicability of Article 6 § 2 arises in the context of subsequent proceedings, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of a link, as referred to above, between the concluded criminal proceedings and the subsequent proceedings. Such a link is likely to be present, for example, where the subsequent proceedings require examination of the outcome of the prior criminal proceedings and, in particular, where they oblige the court to analyse the criminal judgment, to engage in a review or evaluation of the evidence in the criminal file, to assess the applicant’s participation in some or all of the events leading to the criminal charge, or to comment on the subsisting indications of the applicant’s possible guilt.
….
(b) Application of the general principles to the facts of the case
….
107. The Court’s task at this stage of its analysis is therefore to examine whether there was a link between the concluded criminal proceedings and the compensation proceedings, having regard to the relevant considerations set out above (see paragraph 104 above). ….
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:39 pm

In looking into the Susan Neill-Fraser case in Australia, I found a presentation by Barbara Etter. There is a photograph of the dinghy with a blue glow. Here are quotes from Ms. Etter's presentation, which itself quotes from a 2014 report on this case.

"An independent expert BPA report (2014) found that the positive luminol result in the Four Winds dinghy was most likely the result of luminescence due to possible overtreatment with luminol and/or false positives."

“'During the examination of the Quicksilver inflatable Zodiac tender, at least sixteen (16) swabs from seven (7) different locations were tested with two different confirmatory tests* for human blood. In every instance test results were negative.'” P. 11 of the independent report.

“'No attempt should ever be made to align the visual colour, duration and/or intensity of any luminol reaction to the presence of human blood without confirmatory scientific support. Where no such testing is undertaken, or the results to those tests are negative the presence of blood should not be reported or opined. To do so, essentially amounts to a “guess” and is scientifically misleading.'" p. 14 of the independent report

*Elsewhere in Ms. Etter's presentation, the two tests are identified as the Ouchterlony test and the HemaTrace test.

The issue of possible over-treatment with luminol came up in the Knox/Sollecito case. Even Colonel Garofano made some comment which suggested that the luminol had been over-applied, and the droplets in some photographs are suggestive of this as well. I seem to recall finding another reference to over-application being a possible cause of false positives with luminol a long time ago, but I do not recall the details. The lack of positive results with the confirmatory tests is a critical point.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:49 pm

Annella wrote:An interesting article discussing the role of media in such cases as Bossetti, Stasi, Knox & Sollecito.

Translated page......

goo.gl/wKwTpU

( Copy and paste the url into browser, not sure why it wont link direct!)

Edited by a Moderator.
This one should work:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fagenziaradicale.com%2Findex.php%2Frubriche%2Fstile-libero%2F4731-quanto-pesa-la-pressione-mediatica-sui-processi-il-caso-bossetti-condannato-anche-in-appello&edit-text=


Good read. Thanks for posting. Luca has been keeping me (and everyone else here) updated on Bossetti.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:40 pm

Los Angeles, 6.30PM today.....an evening with Amanda and Law professor Laurie Levenson along with other panelists on subject of INJUSTICE.
Will be live streamed on this facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/NCAVF/
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:09 am

20292893_10155469590086777_8802329174182361878_n.jpg
Annella wrote:Los Angeles, 6.30PM today.....an evening with Amanda and Law professor Laurie Levenson along with other panelists on subject of INJUSTICE.
Will be live streamed on this facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/NCAVF/


Thanks Annella ... have posted this to the WGA chat board Writer Action.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:02 am

carlofab wrote:
20292893_10155469590086777_8802329174182361878_n.jpg
Annella wrote:Los Angeles, 6.30PM today.....an evening with Amanda and Law professor Laurie Levenson along with other panelists on subject of INJUSTICE.
Will be live streamed on this facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/NCAVF/


Thanks Annella ... have posted this to the WGA chat board Writer Action.



Hey Carlofab......the live stream fizzed out but in a few days time the whole video will be online. Amanda did so well, she gets better every time she speaks publicly.
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:57 am

Annella wrote:Los Angeles, 6.30PM today.....an evening with Amanda and Law professor Laurie Levenson along with other panelists on subject of INJUSTICE.

First reports:
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/270600566-story
http://ktla.com/2017/07/28/amanda-knox- ... efined-me/
european neighbour
 
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:53 pm

Thanks Annella and European Neighbor...

I have good use for your information.

:)
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:51 am

Found this at twitter today....

" It's common knowledge that Italian prosecutors have arrested the wrong man.....but they aren't backing down"

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/ ... al_twitter
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:45 am

Annella wrote:Los Angeles, 6.30PM today.....an evening with Amanda and Law professor Laurie Levenson along with other panelists on subject of INJUSTICE.
Will be live streamed on this facebook page...

Here it is on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M2OrKo2LVg
european neighbour
 
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:43 pm

european neighbour wrote:
Annella wrote:Los Angeles, 6.30PM today.....an evening with Amanda and Law professor Laurie Levenson along with other panelists on subject of INJUSTICE.
Will be live streamed on this facebook page...

Here it is on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M2OrKo2LVg


Thanks. . . .Just listened to it.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:32 am

european neighbour wrote:
Annella wrote:Los Angeles, 6.30PM today.....an evening with Amanda and Law professor Laurie Levenson along with other panelists on subject of INJUSTICE.
Will be live streamed on this facebook page...

Here it is on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M2OrKo2LVg


To European

Thanks European for the information and I did watch it as well and I enjoy it very much. I am looking forward of freeing my innocent 6 even I can care less because I just don't get it. Every time the TJMK is at it again of another stupid way even after we are watching it. Hope comes out of no where and post this on the site!!!

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... d_by_knox/

I deleted Hope from my facebook page 8 month ago and my other friends, did as well, and why? Because Hope is just more sick then Kate. They both agree of guilt with no heart and we know that Amanda was wrongful convicted of murder!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4461
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:21 pm

Amanda commenting on the Text/Suicide Case:

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/World/2017/08/04/22742948.html

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:27 pm

anonshy wrote:Amanda commenting on the Text/Suicide Case:

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/World/2017/08/04/22742948.html

Anon



Amanda has replied to the criticism she has received over her LA Times piece.....

https://www.westsideseattle.com/ballard ... lle-carter
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Samson » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:25 am

Annella wrote:
anonshy wrote:Amanda commenting on the Text/Suicide Case:

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/World/2017/08/04/22742948.html

Anon



Amanda has replied to the criticism she has received over her LA Times piece.....

https://www.westsideseattle.com/ballard ... lle-carter

This is great Annella.
For me it is a coming of age analysis by Amanda, it would be wrong to laud her automatically for her reflections because being in the wrong place at the wrong time qualifies her. This would be no more helpful than being more interested in Prince Charles' views on architecture than my own.

But this is the best writing I have seen her do, and as a liberal in matters of crime and punishment where my views are embedded in statistical analysis., (I have been thinking about statistics involving billionaire suicides (tongue in cheek))
I think her piece here should be studied widely.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:22 pm

Amanda's Rolling Stone interview is well worth reading:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/fea ... on-w497051

"You don't have to beat a person into submission and psychologically screw with them, like they did with me. There are reasons why there are checks and balances to the kind of power that interrogators have in those rooms. As soon as they start pushing an interrogation into a predetermined answer, as opposed to the truth, the outcome is inevitable. You are going to break people. I was a 20-year-old girl who had never been in trouble with the law before, and I had the Italian fluency of a 10-year-old. There was no way I was coming out of the interrogation room intact. There was no way."
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:33 am

Numbers wrote:Amanda's Rolling Stone interview is well worth reading:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/fea ... on-w497051

"You don't have to beat a person into submission and psychologically screw with them, like they did with me. There are reasons why there are checks and balances to the kind of power that interrogators have in those rooms. As soon as they start pushing an interrogation into a predetermined answer, as opposed to the truth, the outcome is inevitable. You are going to break people. I was a 20-year-old girl who had never been in trouble with the law before, and I had the Italian fluency of a 10-year-old. There was no way I was coming out of the interrogation room intact. There was no way."


To Number

Hey Number thank you so much for the information and I really enjoy it and I thought that Amanda has the same problem. Just like me! I have problems with my anger and I lose my cool with it of saying the curse word: Blankit for no reason and even I go over board. I will never be independent. I know some people want me to be that way. But it never going to work even I lose my cool into anger with rages of bad ways, and I really enjoy reading this part, because I wasted 6yrs inside my Jr High School from November 88-91 & high school from 91-94 and I made a promise and keep that promise that I am going to write a nasty novel to confront my school and yes people can sue me, with my innocent project. I was very strick into things I was loving things to make sure I would live there and screw it to do it, and it was my dream to disobey my family even my mother. I love her. But she careless of that she didn't want to lose me. I know it was tough because I am losing my dad from cancer and it not easy even he not 100% He was only 45% better. He not going to make it at all. This is a tough cancer and I wanted to write a novel even I might only be a free ed-u-ca-tion of getting my dipolma and it was all free, even a lot had happen and I ask myself over and over and over again: WHY IN HELL DID I GET IT FOR FREE. IT WAS BULL CRAP FOR NO REASON!!!

Anyway here what she said into quote:!!!

How was the process of writing your book? Was it painful to recount your past?

Oh, man. It was harder than I thought it was going to be. I knew that I wanted to write about everything that had happened. I thought about what it looked like, what it all meant and why it was so surreal for me through the process. Leading up to my conviction, I had all the hope that things were going well, and leading up to my acquittal, I had every reason to fear the worst. That cognitive dissonance that things were getting better and things were getting worse was part of my journey. I knew that so much had been said about me, but I never had a chance to explain myself. I felt very strongly that was important.

What I didn't realize is how angry I was. Surviving the prison environment and the whole process of sitting there and being on trial and listening to people speculate about how much of a monster I was day in, day out, was difficult. I very realistically and very practically would numb myself to a lot of the pain, the anger and the frustration.

How did you manage that?

I just had to sit back and take it and take it and take it. When I started to unravel the pieces, once I was out, I realized how angry I was, which is weird. I don't feel like an angry person, you know? I feel like I've tried to give every person the benefit of the doubt, but I still feel like I can do that while feeling hurt and angry. There were definitely times when describing more painful moments in my memoir that I had to stop and take a few walks around the block to chill out. I would take breaks to be kind to myself. I needed help and support.


So thanks again and talk to you soon Number!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4461
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:40 pm

The Strange Case of the Innocents Who Confessed to Murders They Didn’t Commit


All six of the people charged, to a varying degree, suffered from what's called memory distrust syndrome—a phenomenon whereby you doubt your own memories so deeply that your mind starts to fabricate new ones, a type of "source amnesia" in which the source of learned information somehow becomes confused or replaced entirely.




https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xww8 ... dnt-commit

and more....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_distrust_syndrome
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Previous

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron