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: 8058
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: 1663
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: 1663
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: 1663
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: 1083
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: 1663
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: 930
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: 8058
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

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
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: 4459
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: 1939
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: 8058
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: 1663
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: 1798
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: 1663
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: 930
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: 8058
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: 530
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: 1663
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

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
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: 1412
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: 1663
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: 1798
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: 4459
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: 1412
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: 1412
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: 930
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: 1412
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: 930
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

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
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: 1083
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: 1412
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: 1939
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: 1663
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

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
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: 1412
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:38 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, I am not sure if you are to late right now. Or it is just right on time. Amanda Knox is on People magazine right now and it is out on all gorcery stories and go get your copy. I just got mine today. So go shopping right now!!!

http://people.com/pen/00000158-3295-d6e ... f76e20000/
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:29 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, Amanda Knox will return to Italy next year? It is official that she is going to be in Perugia Italy!!!

Watch on youtube.com


Someone is not going to be happy. I wonder who that is? Oh it Peter Quennell. He going to lose his cool one more time, when Amanda is in Italy. Peter will be Hitler once again and they will tell them. Peter, Peter Quennell Amanda Knox is in Perugia Italy. Peter will say: All True justice for Meredith Kercher, must leave, accept Ergon, Jackie & Machivelli!!!

Machivelli said: Look sir we tried to stop her and her family.

Peter said: You tried, Machivelli, haven't you been punish of that you stop reading at the age of 12! Ergon you believe that you are God to the world. George Burns is God not you Ergon. This is a disgrace and she should be banned from Italy!!!

What should I do right now. Should me and Bruce shake hand and forget this whole thing. No!!!!! I can't do that, even he will be so happy of seeing Amanda being welcome to Italy!!!

Now Amanda will get a free ticket to see Meredith Kercher grave and no one can stop her!!!

All of the Amanda Knox supporter will be jumping with joy and Jackie you can shove this where the sun doesn't shine!!!

I should had fired Catnip, even I miss my dear friend Peggy Gangong and I should had listen to Tom McGuire Jr and watch an Anne Hathaway Movie!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby Numbers » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:01 am

A brief update on the ECHR. On September 5, 2017, it returned to issuing judgments after its August recess. (A vacation or recess for the month of August is common, even for organizations, in parts of Europe.) Among the first judgments it issued were three* that included violations of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c (unfair trial due to denial of a lawyer during an interrogation or initial custody). This violation is among those alleged by Amanda in Knox v. Italy, a case which remains among the "noteworthy pending cases" before the ECHR, according to the Country Profile for Italy. There is no certain date yet given by ECHR for the judgment in Knox v. Italy. Because there is a large backlog of cases, ECHR judgments may given as many as several years after a Communication is first issued. The Communication in Knox v. Italy was issued 29 April, 2016. My guess (or hope) is that a judgment in Knox v. Italy may be issued by the end of 2017 or in 2018.

*Excerpt from the ECHR press release. Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home. See PDF at Judgments of 05/09/2017:

Bayram Koç v. Turkey (no. 38907/09)
Bozkaya v. Turkey (no. 46661/09)
Türk v. Turkey (no. 22744/07)

....Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial / right to legal assistance of own
choosing) of the European Convention, all three applicants complained that their right to a fair trial
was violated because their convictions were based on confessions obtained through unlawful
coercion tactics and in the absence of a lawyer. Mr Türk maintained in particular that he had been
led to believe that his confession was a mere formality because the offence for which he thought he
was charged was time-barred.
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) – in all three cases
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) – in the case of Bozkaya
....
_______
The ECHR ruled that in each case, the applicant was entitled to request a retrial with all Convention rights respected.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Annella » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:52 am

Take some time to read this and then watch the Netflix series.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/confe ... w-netflix/
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby Annella » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:53 am

Numbers wrote:A brief update on the ECHR. On September 5, 2017, it returned to issuing judgments after its August recess. (A vacation or recess for the month of August is common, even for organizations, in parts of Europe.) Among the first judgments it issued were three* that included violations of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c (unfair trial due to denial of a lawyer during an interrogation or initial custody). This violation is among those alleged by Amanda in Knox v. Italy, a case which remains among the "noteworthy pending cases" before the ECHR, according to the Country Profile for Italy. There is no certain date yet given by ECHR for the judgment in Knox v. Italy. Because there is a large backlog of cases, ECHR judgments may given as many as several years after a Communication is first issued. The Communication in Knox v. Italy was issued 29 April, 2016. My guess (or hope) is that a judgment in Knox v. Italy may be issued by the end of 2017 or in 2018.

*Excerpt from the ECHR press release. Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home. See PDF at Judgments of 05/09/2017:

Bayram Koç v. Turkey (no. 38907/09)
Bozkaya v. Turkey (no. 46661/09)
Türk v. Turkey (no. 22744/07)

....Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial / right to legal assistance of own
choosing) of the European Convention, all three applicants complained that their right to a fair trial
was violated because their convictions were based on confessions obtained through unlawful
coercion tactics and in the absence of a lawyer. Mr Türk maintained in particular that he had been
led to believe that his confession was a mere formality because the offence for which he thought he
was charged was time-barred.
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) – in all three cases
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) – in the case of Bozkaya
....
_______
The ECHR ruled that in each case, the applicant was entitled to request a retrial with all Convention rights respected.


Great news! Thanks Numbers! :)
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:52 am

Annella wrote:Take some time to read this and then watch the Netflix series.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/confe ... w-netflix/


To Anne

Thank you Anne, even I am watching this right now. The first episode is about 2 teenage boys of who are charge of murder in 1993-94 and they are telling me step by step even the police warn them of don't touch them. It was like really don't touch the bad people. We don't know them? So anyway here is another article and enjoy reading it!!!

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... rogations/

This is about a mother who lost her daughter while the house was burn down and she does take the lied taker test and the lie taker machines lies. I support lie taker even I believe you can beat the test to prove that innocent and people say things that they just don't know here is it in a dream world of unknown of that part and talk to you soon Anne!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby Annella » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:17 pm


What Netflix's "The Confession Tapes" Teach Us about the Psychology of Interrogations


Case 3: Wes Myers
The sentence:
Wes Myers was found guilty of first-degree murder and arson, for allegedly strangling his girlfriend to death at the bar she worked at, and then setting the room on fire.
The bad science: Fabricated evidence, that hair sample was a DNA match. Use of leading and suggestive interview techniques.
Lead up to the confession:
Wes Myers: “I was questioning myself”
Wes Myers: “They told me that I’d blacked out


Problem 3: Leading and Suggestive Interviewing
In addition to accepting the polygraph evidence, Boes is bombarded with leading and suggestive interview techniques that are known to facilitate the creation of false memories.
For one, Boes was told that she had simply not accepted her crime, and her mind was hiding this memory from her. When denying any involvement with the death of her daughter, the interviewer responded with; “Ok. Either that or you don’t want to believe that right now... There are some things that we do that our bad mind causes us to do that our good minds would never accept.” This is not dissimilar from the contentious notion of repression, a fertile foundation for false memories.


Two other factors that make us even more prone to false memories and false confessions are (a) a long and persistent interrogation where someone is presumed to be guilty and (b) high emotional intensity—both of which are seen in this case.



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... ign=buffer
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby european neighbour » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:34 am

The denial of compensation explained by cassazione:
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 9ee9f.html
european neighbour
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

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

Postby Numbers » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:22 pm

european neighbour wrote:The denial of compensation explained by cassazione:
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 9ee9f.html


Supreme Court, [claims] Sollecito's Lies and Silences
Reasons No Compensation but Bongiorno says "Do not drop the curtain"

Rome, 14 September. At the initial stages of the Meredith Kercher Raffaele Sollecito murder investigations, he provided "lying and contradictory statements"; his statements have "found punctual denials in every respect". And this has reinforced in the investigators "the prospect of his involvement" by bringing him into custody in a provisional way. With this reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim for compensation for unjust imprisonment, also denied in appeal, for the four years in prison for perpetration in Perugia of the English student. At the end of which Sollecito was finally absolved.
"The curtain does not fall here [this is not the end of the legal action]," replied the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, who announced appeal [an application] to the European Court [ECHR]. "It has been totally overlooked - she said - the annihilation of defensive warranties [rights of defense] in which the statements made to deny the compensation were made." - Google translated with some help from me
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:52 pm

Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:The denial of compensation explained by cassazione:
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 9ee9f.html


Supreme Court, [claims] Sollecito's Lies and Silences
Reasons No Compensation but Bongiorno says "Do not drop the curtain"

Rome, 14 September. At the initial stages of the Meredith Kercher Raffaele Sollecito murder investigations, he provided "lying and contradictory statements"; his statements have "found punctual denials in every respect". And this has reinforced in the investigators "the prospect of his involvement" by bringing him into custody in a provisional way. With this reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim for compensation for unjust imprisonment, also denied in appeal, for the four years in prison for perpetration in Perugia of the English student. At the end of which Sollecito was finally absolved.
"The curtain does not fall here [this is not the end of the legal action]," replied the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, who announced appeal [an application] to the European Court [ECHR]. "It has been totally overlooked - she said - the annihilation of defensive warranties [rights of defense] in which the statements made to deny the compensation were made." - Google translated with some help from me


According to this article, the CSC (Supreme Court of Cassation) has delivered its motivation report. Sollecito and his lawyers have 6 calendar months to file an application with the ECHR claiming that Italy has violated his rights under the European Convention in denying him compensation. According to the article, Bongiorno stated that such an application would be filed.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:41 am

To everyone

Hey everyone today is the 69th Emmy awards and will Amanda Knox netflix speical win an award and who else do you want to win an awards. Will it political? I don't know. But it could be something nasty, into the Emmy even yes Stephen Colbert was a joke into president Trump and he could do something nasty. We will have to wait and see, and what do you want in the Emmy awards and here the link of the site!!!

https://qz.com/1077566/will-stephen-col ... my-awards/

Who do I want to win is Stranger things and Amanda Knox Netflix speical awards. I don't mind about comedy even I got screw by that of my own tv show I love Big Bang Theory and it should had been nominated. But I am rooting for no comedy only Stranger things and Amanda Knox and that all and I would like to heard what you think who should win and will you watch it too?

So talk to you soon everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby struoc » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:57 am

Annella wrote:Take some time to read this and then watch the Netflix series.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/confe ... w-netflix/


I haven't seen the Netflix series yet, but it's a topic that's so bizarre to the average person, as myself. People admitting to things they didn't do and/or just being mentally manipulated to say anything the interrogators want is hard to comprehend.

Videos being required is a great start but there have to be more law changes. I notice the time of interrogation is a key factor in general.
Time restrictions on how long an interrogation can go on are needed.

Let alone as in Amanda's case signing off on legal police documents she can't even understand. The whole Patrick vision thing and those doing this investigation must know they are coercing the person, they really worked over Raffaele and Amanda those first few days.

"everything you say can and will be used against you"...seems to fit....especially the "will be used against you" part.
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:40 am

struoc wrote:
Annella wrote:Take some time to read this and then watch the Netflix series.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/confe ... w-netflix/


I haven't seen the Netflix series yet, but it's a topic that's so bizarre to the average person, as myself. People admitting to things they didn't do and/or just being mentally manipulated to say anything the interrogators want is hard to comprehend.

Videos being required is a great start but there have to be more law changes. I notice the time of interrogation is a key factor in general.
Time restrictions on how long an interrogation can go on are needed.

Let alone as in Amanda's case signing off on legal police documents she can't even understand. The whole Patrick vision thing and those doing this investigation must know they are coercing the person, they really worked over Raffaele and Amanda those first few days.

"everything you say can and will be used against you"...seems to fit....especially the "will be used against you" part.



My initial reaction to the "false confession" phenomenon was that it was implausible and that - if in one in 10 million cases, someone made a false confession - his imprisonment was part of Darwin's natural selection and would serve as a warning to others.
With DNA, we have discovered that - beyond any doubt - false confessions are common. This surprised me and I am still trying to get my head around it. When the police pick you up and question you, you are either "free to go" ("hey guys, I love the police, I want to help you solve this case, but it is getting late, I need my sleep, so let me know when we can continue this tomorrow") or you are under arrest in which case you are entitled to a lawyer. I think that the police create the impression that there is a third status - indefinite detention - which they can impose and they can essentially hold you until you tell them something which they think is true.
Because of the false confession phenomenon, I don't think any confessions other than purely spontaneous confessions or confessions made in transit should be admitted into evidence unless they are recorded. In Amanda's case, the failure to record the incriminating statement should have led to a prohibition on its use.
The problem is that it is released to the news media and pollutes the jury pool and public opinion.
In the Knox case, the failure to record the incriminating statement, the destruction of the computer hard drives, the resistance to the defense efforts to obtain DNA data files, the late collection of the bra clasp under suspicious circumstances, the preferential treatment of Guede - all convinced me that this was likely a case of police and prosecutorial misconduct. Perhaps an effort to frame someone that they "knew" was guilty, but misconduct nevertheless.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby sept79 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:10 am

erasmus44 wrote:
My initial reaction to the "false confession" phenomenon was that it was implausible and that - if in one in 10 million cases, someone made a false confession - his imprisonment was part of Darwin's natural selection and would serve as a warning to others.
With DNA, we have discovered that - beyond any doubt - false confessions are common. This surprised me and I am still trying to get my head around it. When the police pick you up and question you, you are either "free to go" ("hey guys, I love the police, I want to help you solve this case, but it is getting late, I need my sleep, so let me know when we can continue this tomorrow") or you are under arrest in which case you are entitled to a lawyer. I think that the police create the impression that there is a third status - indefinite detention - which they can impose and they can essentially hold you until you tell them something which they think is true.
Because of the false confession phenomenon, I don't think any confessions other than purely spontaneous confessions or confessions made in transit should be admitted into evidence unless they are recorded. In Amanda's case, the failure to record the incriminating statement should have led to a prohibition on its use.
The problem is that it is released to the news media and pollutes the jury pool and public opinion.
In the Knox case, the failure to record the incriminating statement, the destruction of the computer hard drives, the resistance to the defense efforts to obtain DNA data files, the late collection of the bra clasp under suspicious circumstances, the preferential treatment of Guede - all convinced me that this was likely a case of police and prosecutorial misconduct. Perhaps an effort to frame someone that they "knew" was guilty, but misconduct nevertheless.


In Italy, is one free to leave unless placed under arrest?
sept79
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 7:16 am

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

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:17 am

sept79 wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
My initial reaction to the "false confession" phenomenon was that it was implausible and that - if in one in 10 million cases, someone made a false confession - his imprisonment was part of Darwin's natural selection and would serve as a warning to others.
With DNA, we have discovered that - beyond any doubt - false confessions are common. This surprised me and I am still trying to get my head around it. When the police pick you up and question you, you are either "free to go" ("hey guys, I love the police, I want to help you solve this case, but it is getting late, I need my sleep, so let me know when we can continue this tomorrow") or you are under arrest in which case you are entitled to a lawyer. I think that the police create the impression that there is a third status - indefinite detention - which they can impose and they can essentially hold you until you tell them something which they think is true.
Because of the false confession phenomenon, I don't think any confessions other than purely spontaneous confessions or confessions made in transit should be admitted into evidence unless they are recorded. In Amanda's case, the failure to record the incriminating statement should have led to a prohibition on its use.
The problem is that it is released to the news media and pollutes the jury pool and public opinion.
In the Knox case, the failure to record the incriminating statement, the destruction of the computer hard drives, the resistance to the defense efforts to obtain DNA data files, the late collection of the bra clasp under suspicious circumstances, the preferential treatment of Guede - all convinced me that this was likely a case of police and prosecutorial misconduct. Perhaps an effort to frame someone that they "knew" was guilty, but misconduct nevertheless.


In Italy, is one free to leave unless placed under arrest?



Good question. I am not sure.
Another point. In the realm of military and anti-terrorism interrogations, I am sure that we have developed data on the accuracy of the response to different techniques. Remember that in WW2, the most effective system seemed to be the low key Luftwaffe system of "one pilot small talking to another" rather than enhanced interrogation. Military interrogations seek ACCURATE INFORMATION for the purpose of operational optimization. Police interrogations seek INFORMATION WHICH WILL HELP CLOSE FILES - which is not necessarily accurate information.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby roteoctober » Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:06 pm

sept79 wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
My initial reaction to the "false confession" phenomenon was that it was implausible and that - if in one in 10 million cases, someone made a false confession - his imprisonment was part of Darwin's natural selection and would serve as a warning to others.
With DNA, we have discovered that - beyond any doubt - false confessions are common. This surprised me and I am still trying to get my head around it. When the police pick you up and question you, you are either "free to go" ("hey guys, I love the police, I want to help you solve this case, but it is getting late, I need my sleep, so let me know when we can continue this tomorrow") or you are under arrest in which case you are entitled to a lawyer. I think that the police create the impression that there is a third status - indefinite detention - which they can impose and they can essentially hold you until you tell them something which they think is true.
Because of the false confession phenomenon, I don't think any confessions other than purely spontaneous confessions or confessions made in transit should be admitted into evidence unless they are recorded. In Amanda's case, the failure to record the incriminating statement should have led to a prohibition on its use.
The problem is that it is released to the news media and pollutes the jury pool and public opinion.
In the Knox case, the failure to record the incriminating statement, the destruction of the computer hard drives, the resistance to the defense efforts to obtain DNA data files, the late collection of the bra clasp under suspicious circumstances, the preferential treatment of Guede - all convinced me that this was likely a case of police and prosecutorial misconduct. Perhaps an effort to frame someone that they "knew" was guilty, but misconduct nevertheless.


In Italy, is one free to leave unless placed under arrest?


In Italy there exists the grey area of the “person informed about the facts”: when you are interviewed as such you have no right to a lawyer and you are under the obligation to tell all that you know. Lying to the investigators (technically to the prosecutor, which in this phase is the chief investigator) or refusing to answer to the questions can be punished with up to 4 years of imprisonment (art. 371 bis CP), even if it must be proven that you refused to say something you knew: a refusal to answer in itself (or better a “I know nothing” answer) is not sanctionable, nor you can be arrested for that.

About simply leaving the interrogation room if not under arrest ... theoretically yes, in line of principle, but it can be not easy in practice ... they can allege bureaucratic formalities which will require some time or ... something else.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

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

Postby Numbers » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:23 pm

roteoctober wrote:
sept79 wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
My initial reaction to the "false confession" phenomenon was that it was implausible and that - if in one in 10 million cases, someone made a false confession - his imprisonment was part of Darwin's natural selection and would serve as a warning to others.
With DNA, we have discovered that - beyond any doubt - false confessions are common. This surprised me and I am still trying to get my head around it. When the police pick you up and question you, you are either "free to go" ("hey guys, I love the police, I want to help you solve this case, but it is getting late, I need my sleep, so let me know when we can continue this tomorrow") or you are under arrest in which case you are entitled to a lawyer. I think that the police create the impression that there is a third status - indefinite detention - which they can impose and they can essentially hold you until you tell them something which they think is true.
Because of the false confession phenomenon, I don't think any confessions other than purely spontaneous confessions or confessions made in transit should be admitted into evidence unless they are recorded. In Amanda's case, the failure to record the incriminating statement should have led to a prohibition on its use.
The problem is that it is released to the news media and pollutes the jury pool and public opinion.
In the Knox case, the failure to record the incriminating statement, the destruction of the computer hard drives, the resistance to the defense efforts to obtain DNA data files, the late collection of the bra clasp under suspicious circumstances, the preferential treatment of Guede - all convinced me that this was likely a case of police and prosecutorial misconduct. Perhaps an effort to frame someone that they "knew" was guilty, but misconduct nevertheless.


In Italy, is one free to leave unless placed under arrest?


In Italy there exists the grey area of the “person informed about the facts”: when you are interviewed as such you have no right to a lawyer and you are under the obligation to tell all that you know. Lying to the investigators (technically to the prosecutor, which in this phase is the chief investigator) or refusing to answer to the questions can be punished with up to 4 years of imprisonment (art. 371 bis CP), even if it must be proven that you refused to say something you knew: a refusal to answer in itself (or better a “I know nothing” answer) is not sanctionable, nor you can be arrested for that.

About simply leaving the interrogation room if not under arrest ... theoretically yes, in line of principle, but it can be not easy in practice ... they can allege bureaucratic formalities which will require some time or ... something else.


It may also be important to consider ECHR case-law as well as Italian law, since the next anticipated step in the legal path is the ECHR case of Knox v. Italy.

Here are some statements from the ECHR case of Deweer v. Belgium 6903/75 27/02/1980 on how the ECHR determines when a person [or suspect] is, in reality, criminally charged:

"43. In the present case there was no arrest and no official notification of impending prosecution. ....

44. However, the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see especially the above-mentioned Airey judgment, pp. 12-13, par. 24) prompts the Court to prefer a "substantive", rather than a "formal", conception of the "charge" contemplated by Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1). The Court is compelled to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the procedure in question.
....
46. .... The "charge" could, for the purposes of Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1), be defined as the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence. In several decisions and opinions the Commission has adopted a test that appears to be fairly closely related, namely whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (Neumeister case, Series B no. 6, p. 81; case of Huber v. Austria, Yearbook of the Convention, vol. 18, p. 356, 67; case of Hätti v. Federal Republic of Germany, ibid., vol. 19, p. 1064, 50, etc.)."

Brusco v. France 1466/07 14/10/2010 (Judgment text available only in French; the following excerpts are from the press release)

"[A Mr. B.M. was attacked by two hooded individuals. He told police he suspected Mr. Brusco and his wife, who he believed were having an affair, were responsible for this attack. Approximately 6 months after the attack, two presumed attackers were arrested by the police, and one of them accused Brusco of masterminding the attack.] The investigating judge issued a warrant for the police to question witnesses and conduct all the investigations necessary to establish the truth.

At 5.50 p.m. on 7 June 1999 [4 and 5 days, respectively, after the arrest of the two presumed attackers] Mr Brusco was stopped and taken into police custody. He was made to swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses could be required to do under Article 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was then questioned by the police [without a lawyer present, since he was allegedly formally a witness being questioned, not a suspect]. He confessed to having been involved in the incident and having hired two men to “scare” B.M. and make him leave his wife alone and stay away from his daughter. He admitted to having paid them 100,000 French francs (about 15,000 euros) and given them his description. However, he firmly denied having asked them to use physical violence against B.M. or agreed to them using it. At 2.10 p.m. on 8 June he was allowed to see his lawyer.

At the end of his police custody Mr Brusco was placed under investigation for aiding and abetting attempted murder, and remanded in custody. He lodged an application with the Indictment Division of the Paris Court of Appeal to disallow the records of his questioning in police custody and the subsequent measures. His application was rejected on 28 June 2001, as it had been perfectly legal [under French law at that time] to question Mr Brusco as a witness and therefore to make him swear an oath. Indeed, although he was suspected of having masterminded the offence, there was no evidence that he had actually encouraged the use of violence. On 1 March 2002 Mr Brusco was sent before the Paris Criminal Court. On 31 October 2002 that court dismissed his objections of nullity concerning his questioning under oath and based, among other things, on the statements thus obtained from him, sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, one of which was suspended. On 26 October 2004 that judgment was upheld in full by the Paris Court of Appeal. On 27 June 2006 the Court of Cassation rejected Mr Brusco’s further appeals.

....

Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, Mr Brusco complained that he had been obliged to take an oath before being questioned, and that he had been deprived of the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself.

Decision of the Court
The Court began by stressing the importance of the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself, which are generally accepted international legal principles at the heart of the notion of a fair trial.
It then noted that when Mr Brusco had been made to swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, he had been in police custody (at the time it was possible to place an individual in police custody even without “substantial, consistent evidence” or “reasonable suspicion” that he or she had committed an offence). However, at the time when Mr Brusco was questioned in police custody one of the presumed aggressors had already identified him as the mastermind behind the attack, and the victim had lodged a complaint against him. The authorities had therefore had reason to suspect him of being involved in the offence. Accordingly, in the Court’s opinion the argument that Mr Brusco had merely been a witness – which was why he had been asked to take an oath – was purely formalistic and therefore unconvincing. In actual fact, when Mr Brusco had been taken into custody and made to swear an oath, “criminal charges” had been brought against him and he should therefore have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, as guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.

Mr Brusco was convicted on the basis of the statements he had made under oath. The Court found that the fact that he was made to take an oath before answering the questions of the police amounted to a form of pressure on the applicant (who had been in police custody since the previous day), and that the threat of criminal proceedings should he be found to have committed perjury must have placed him under even greater pressure. The Court also noted that the law had changed in 2004 and that the obligation to swear an oath and answer questions was no longer applicable to people placed in police custody under a warrant issued by an investigating judge.

Furthermore, Mr Brusco had not been informed at the start of the interview that he had the right to remain silent, not to answer any questions or to answer only those questions he wished to answer. In addition, he had been allowed the assistance of a lawyer only after 20 hours in police custody (as provided for under Article 63-4 of the Code of Criminal procedure). His lawyer had thus been unable to inform him, before he was questioned, of his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, or to assist him when he was questioned on that and subsequent occasions, as required under Article 6.

The result had been an infringement of Mr Brusco’s right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3."

Ibrahim and others v. the United Kingdom [GC] 50541/08 ... 13/09/2016 (excerpt from the summary in the Factsheet - Police arrest and assistance of a lawyer [PDF available at http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=p ... tsheets&c=])

"....The Court was also satisfied that the proceedings as a whole in respect of each of the first three applicants had been fair. The position with regard to the fourth applicant, who also complained about the delay in access to a lawyer, was different. He was initially interviewed as a witness, and therefore without legal advice. However, it emerged during questioning that he had assisted a fourth bomber following the failed attack. At that point, according to the applicable code of practice, he should have been cautioned and offered legal advice. However, this was not done. After he had made a written witness statement, he was arrested, charged with, and subsequently convicted of, assisting the fourth bomber and failing to disclose information after the attacks. In his case, the Court was not convinced that there had been compelling reasons for restricting his access to legal advice and for failing to inform him of his right to remain silent. It was significant that there was no basis in domestic law for the police to choose not to caution him at the point at which he had started to incriminate himself. The consequence was that he had been misled as to his procedural rights. Further, the police decision could not subsequently be reviewed as it had not been recorded and no evidence had been heard as to the reasons behind it. As there were no compelling reasons, it fell to the UK Government to show that the proceedings were nonetheless fair. In the Court’s view they were unable to do this and it accordingly concluded that the overall fairness of the fourth applicant’s trial had been prejudiced by the decision not to caution him and to restrict his access to legal advice."
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:53 pm

Numbers wrote:
roteoctober wrote:
sept79 wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
My initial reaction to the "false confession" phenomenon was that it was implausible and that - if in one in 10 million cases, someone made a false confession - his imprisonment was part of Darwin's natural selection and would serve as a warning to others.
With DNA, we have discovered that - beyond any doubt - false confessions are common. This surprised me and I am still trying to get my head around it. When the police pick you up and question you, you are either "free to go" ("hey guys, I love the police, I want to help you solve this case, but it is getting late, I need my sleep, so let me know when we can continue this tomorrow") or you are under arrest in which case you are entitled to a lawyer. I think that the police create the impression that there is a third status - indefinite detention - which they can impose and they can essentially hold you until you tell them something which they think is true.
Because of the false confession phenomenon, I don't think any confessions other than purely spontaneous confessions or confessions made in transit should be admitted into evidence unless they are recorded. In Amanda's case, the failure to record the incriminating statement should have led to a prohibition on its use.
The problem is that it is released to the news media and pollutes the jury pool and public opinion.
In the Knox case, the failure to record the incriminating statement, the destruction of the computer hard drives, the resistance to the defense efforts to obtain DNA data files, the late collection of the bra clasp under suspicious circumstances, the preferential treatment of Guede - all convinced me that this was likely a case of police and prosecutorial misconduct. Perhaps an effort to frame someone that they "knew" was guilty, but misconduct nevertheless.


In Italy, is one free to leave unless placed under arrest?


In Italy there exists the grey area of the “person informed about the facts”: when you are interviewed as such you have no right to a lawyer and you are under the obligation to tell all that you know. Lying to the investigators (technically to the prosecutor, which in this phase is the chief investigator) or refusing to answer to the questions can be punished with up to 4 years of imprisonment (art. 371 bis CP), even if it must be proven that you refused to say something you knew: a refusal to answer in itself (or better a “I know nothing” answer) is not sanctionable, nor you can be arrested for that.

About simply leaving the interrogation room if not under arrest ... theoretically yes, in line of principle, but it can be not easy in practice ... they can allege bureaucratic formalities which will require some time or ... something else.


It may also be important to consider ECHR case-law as well as Italian law, since the next anticipated step in the legal path is the ECHR case of Knox v. Italy.

Here are some statements from the ECHR case of Deweer v. Belgium 6903/75 27/02/1980 on how the ECHR determines when a person [or suspect] is, in reality, criminally charged:

"43. In the present case there was no arrest and no official notification of impending prosecution. ....

44. However, the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see especially the above-mentioned Airey judgment, pp. 12-13, par. 24) prompts the Court to prefer a "substantive", rather than a "formal", conception of the "charge" contemplated by Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1). The Court is compelled to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the procedure in question.
....
46. .... The "charge" could, for the purposes of Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1), be defined as the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence. In several decisions and opinions the Commission has adopted a test that appears to be fairly closely related, namely whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (Neumeister case, Series B no. 6, p. 81; case of Huber v. Austria, Yearbook of the Convention, vol. 18, p. 356, 67; case of Hätti v. Federal Republic of Germany, ibid., vol. 19, p. 1064, 50, etc.)."

Brusco v. France 1466/07 14/10/2010 (Judgment text available only in French; the following excerpts are from the press release)

"[A Mr. B.M. was attacked by two hooded individuals. He told police he suspected Mr. Brusco and his wife, who he believed were having an affair, were responsible for this attack. Approximately 6 months after the attack, two presumed attackers were arrested by the police, and one of them accused Brusco of masterminding the attack.] The investigating judge issued a warrant for the police to question witnesses and conduct all the investigations necessary to establish the truth.

At 5.50 p.m. on 7 June 1999 [4 and 5 days, respectively, after the arrest of the two presumed attackers] Mr Brusco was stopped and taken into police custody. He was made to swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses could be required to do under Article 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was then questioned by the police [without a lawyer present, since he was allegedly formally a witness being questioned, not a suspect]. He confessed to having been involved in the incident and having hired two men to “scare” B.M. and make him leave his wife alone and stay away from his daughter. He admitted to having paid them 100,000 French francs (about 15,000 euros) and given them his description. However, he firmly denied having asked them to use physical violence against B.M. or agreed to them using it. At 2.10 p.m. on 8 June he was allowed to see his lawyer.

At the end of his police custody Mr Brusco was placed under investigation for aiding and abetting attempted murder, and remanded in custody. He lodged an application with the Indictment Division of the Paris Court of Appeal to disallow the records of his questioning in police custody and the subsequent measures. His application was rejected on 28 June 2001, as it had been perfectly legal [under French law at that time] to question Mr Brusco as a witness and therefore to make him swear an oath. Indeed, although he was suspected of having masterminded the offence, there was no evidence that he had actually encouraged the use of violence. On 1 March 2002 Mr Brusco was sent before the Paris Criminal Court. On 31 October 2002 that court dismissed his objections of nullity concerning his questioning under oath and based, among other things, on the statements thus obtained from him, sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, one of which was suspended. On 26 October 2004 that judgment was upheld in full by the Paris Court of Appeal. On 27 June 2006 the Court of Cassation rejected Mr Brusco’s further appeals.

....

Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, Mr Brusco complained that he had been obliged to take an oath before being questioned, and that he had been deprived of the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself.

Decision of the Court
The Court began by stressing the importance of the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself, which are generally accepted international legal principles at the heart of the notion of a fair trial.
It then noted that when Mr Brusco had been made to swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, he had been in police custody (at the time it was possible to place an individual in police custody even without “substantial, consistent evidence” or “reasonable suspicion” that he or she had committed an offence). However, at the time when Mr Brusco was questioned in police custody one of the presumed aggressors had already identified him as the mastermind behind the attack, and the victim had lodged a complaint against him. The authorities had therefore had reason to suspect him of being involved in the offence. Accordingly, in the Court’s opinion the argument that Mr Brusco had merely been a witness – which was why he had been asked to take an oath – was purely formalistic and therefore unconvincing. In actual fact, when Mr Brusco had been taken into custody and made to swear an oath, “criminal charges” had been brought against him and he should therefore have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, as guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.

Mr Brusco was convicted on the basis of the statements he had made under oath. The Court found that the fact that he was made to take an oath before answering the questions of the police amounted to a form of pressure on the applicant (who had been in police custody since the previous day), and that the threat of criminal proceedings should he be found to have committed perjury must have placed him under even greater pressure. The Court also noted that the law had changed in 2004 and that the obligation to swear an oath and answer questions was no longer applicable to people placed in police custody under a warrant issued by an investigating judge.

Furthermore, Mr Brusco had not been informed at the start of the interview that he had the right to remain silent, not to answer any questions or to answer only those questions he wished to answer. In addition, he had been allowed the assistance of a lawyer only after 20 hours in police custody (as provided for under Article 63-4 of the Code of Criminal procedure). His lawyer had thus been unable to inform him, before he was questioned, of his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, or to assist him when he was questioned on that and subsequent occasions, as required under Article 6.

The result had been an infringement of Mr Brusco’s right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3."

Ibrahim and others v. the United Kingdom [GC] 50541/08 ... 13/09/2016 (excerpt from the summary in the Factsheet - Police arrest and assistance of a lawyer [PDF available at http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=p ... tsheets&c=])

"....The Court was also satisfied that the proceedings as a whole in respect of each of the first three applicants had been fair. The position with regard to the fourth applicant, who also complained about the delay in access to a lawyer, was different. He was initially interviewed as a witness, and therefore without legal advice. However, it emerged during questioning that he had assisted a fourth bomber following the failed attack. At that point, according to the applicable code of practice, he should have been cautioned and offered legal advice. However, this was not done. After he had made a written witness statement, he was arrested, charged with, and subsequently convicted of, assisting the fourth bomber and failing to disclose information after the attacks. In his case, the Court was not convinced that there had been compelling reasons for restricting his access to legal advice and for failing to inform him of his right to remain silent. It was significant that there was no basis in domestic law for the police to choose not to caution him at the point at which he had started to incriminate himself. The consequence was that he had been misled as to his procedural rights. Further, the police decision could not subsequently be reviewed as it had not been recorded and no evidence had been heard as to the reasons behind it. As there were no compelling reasons, it fell to the UK Government to show that the proceedings were nonetheless fair. In the Court’s view they were unable to do this and it accordingly concluded that the overall fairness of the fourth applicant’s trial had been prejudiced by the decision not to caution him and to restrict his access to legal advice."


To the above, for completeness, I should add:

SALDUZ v. TURKEY [GC] 36391/02 27/11/2008

54. In this respect, the Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial... At the same time, an accused often finds himself in a particularly vulnerable position at that stage of the proceedings, the effect of which is amplified by the fact that legislation on criminal procedure tends to become increasingly complex, notably with respect to the rules governing the gathering and use of evidence. In most cases, this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer whose task it is, among other things, to help to ensure respect of the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006‑IX, and Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 51, 2 August 2005). Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination (see, mutatis mutandis, Jalloh, cited above, § 101). In this connection, the Court also notes the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (see paragraphs 39‑40 above), in which the CPT repeatedly stated that the right of a detainee to have access to legal advice is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment. Any exception to the enjoyment of this right should be clearly circumscribed and its application strictly limited in time. These principles are particularly called for in the case of serious charges, for it is in the face of the heaviest penalties that respect for the right to a fair trial is to be ensured to the highest possible degree by democratic societies.

55. Against this background, the Court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” (see paragraph 51 above), Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6(see, mutatis mutandis, Magee, cited above, § 44). The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:16 pm

Just been reading the translation of Rudy's early call with Benedetti - "Just one thing. Amanda doesn't have anything to do with it." and "And she wasn't there." Then he makes it very clear that it went down before 9:30. No wonder that the police didn't want him questioned in Germany and rushed up there to try to get him to toe the party line.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:33 am

A little before PMF.org went toast there was a poster there that showed up with a unique position, that RG was innocent and the students guilty. What was interesting about their posts is they made a compelling and reasonably supported argument that the police went out of their way to suppress certain evidence, such as Rudy's friends testimony, various CCTV cameras in the neighborhood, etc. And also they pointed out the logistical and social problems of AK and RS coordinating a premeditated murder with a butcher knife with virtual stranger RG on a moments notice combined with RG's paradoxical inability to identify them in his initial statements despite his willingness to try to defer blame (their theory was something like Raff was the initial attacker who Rudy didn't know to recognize and AK showed up later for the cleanup which Rudy didn't witness) . Of course, they never stopped to consider that the police weren't covering up RG being innocent, but being the lone guilty subject. PMF then unsurprisingly banned them for bringing up uncomfortable points and dissent. Interesting discussion while it lasted.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:18 am

Zrausch wrote:A little before PMF.org went toast there was a poster there that showed up with a unique position, that RG was innocent and the students guilty. What was interesting about their posts is they made a compelling and reasonably supported argument that the police went out of their way to suppress certain evidence, such as Rudy's friends testimony, various CCTV cameras in the neighborhood, etc. And also they pointed out the logistical and social problems of AK and RS coordinating a premeditated murder with a butcher knife with virtual stranger RG on a moments notice combined with RG's paradoxical inability to identify them in his initial statements despite his willingness to try to defer blame (their theory was something like Raff was the initial attacker who Rudy didn't know to recognize and AK showed up later for the cleanup which Rudy didn't witness) . Of course, they never stopped to consider that the police weren't covering up RG being innocent, but being the lone guilty subject. PMF then unsurprisingly banned them for bringing up uncomfortable points and dissent. Interesting discussion while it lasted.

It's a bizarre position to argue. It means accepting that Rudy had been there with Meredith's consent, and nobody believes that. Nencini's conviction of AK and RS in 2014 was based on cherry-picking statements unique to Rudy, namely the motive being the "argument over rent money", while simply ignoring all the other whoppers Rudy had to tell to craft a, "I was there for innocent reasons and was not involved" position.

BTW - whatever happened to the Italian TV attempt to rehabilitate Rudy's image?
    “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: 8058
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am

Bill Williams wrote:It's a bizarre position to argue. It means accepting that Rudy had been there with Meredith's consent, and nobody believes that. Nencini's conviction of AK and RS in 2014 was based on cherry-picking statements unique to Rudy, namely the motive being the "argument over rent money", while simply ignoring all the other whoppers Rudy had to tell to craft a, "I was there for innocent reasons and was not involved" position.

BTW - whatever happened to the Italian TV attempt to rehabilitate Rudy's image?


Yeah it was definitely an illogical position from faith just like the other guilters, but it was interesting how because of their slightly different view, their mental block protecting them from the cognitive dissonance of the truth was positioned differently, allowing them to see some things guilters don't like evidence suppression and illogical statements while hiding some things guilters see like Rudy's obviously bs date story. IIRC they also pointed out how it made no sense Amanda didn't blame Rudy in her initial interrogation, with the only reason being she never saw him. Again a fair point their mind allowed them to see because it was compatible with their Rudy on a date belief which other guilters miss entirely.

If you take a composite view of the two beliefs you actually end up with a window of what basically happened: Rudy killed Meredith as a lone attacker while not there on a date and not identifying anyone else as with him.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:37 am

Zrausch wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:It's a bizarre position to argue. It means accepting that Rudy had been there with Meredith's consent, and nobody believes that. Nencini's conviction of AK and RS in 2014 was based on cherry-picking statements unique to Rudy, namely the motive being the "argument over rent money", while simply ignoring all the other whoppers Rudy had to tell to craft a, "I was there for innocent reasons and was not involved" position.

BTW - whatever happened to the Italian TV attempt to rehabilitate Rudy's image?


Yeah it was definitely an illogical position from faith just like the other guilters, but it was interesting how because of their slightly different view, their mental block protecting them from the cognitive dissonance of the truth was positioned differently, allowing them to see some things guilters don't like evidence suppression and illogical statements while hiding some things guilters see like Rudy's obviously bs date story. IIRC they also pointed out how it made no sense Amanda didn't blame Rudy in her initial interrogation, with the only reason being she never saw him. Again a fair point their mind allowed them to see because it was compatible with their Rudy on a date belief which other guilters miss entirely.

If you take a composite view of the two beliefs you actually end up with a window of what basically happened: Rudy killed Meredith as a lone attacker while not there on a date and not identifying anyone else as with him.


To Bill & Zrauch

You both were right even I had odd feeling of this case and by putting it together. I had hard time even it was so clear that Italy created sloppy Joe and ruin the case and most of all. I first thought Rudy was the loner killer. But then he kept saying things and it made no sense even the PMF.org guilty party keep on believing that Rudy was innocent and HarryRag was really a piece of work and I never liked him. I wasn't going to listen to him even he kept on telling to follow the Judge Massei Report and I wasn't going to follow Judge Massei report. I was no mood for it. I agree with Judge Hellmann report instead. He was a wise man and a better choice even I liked his beliefs more then Judge Massei. If I go another way, I would blame one of Amanda boys in her book!!!

Why TMJ? Why? Because I couldn't understand her novel even it was all about boys to fall in love and to go to Italy is not just romance it about a nature life style even I never been to Italy and I had been to Ireland & Hawaii. But never Italy. I would write it very much different. Raffaele novel was just much better because it has something I enjoy and I just think it was an excellent novel, even he explain the detail way better then Amanda and I really think he did a much better job. In Amanda novel. It was ok even I give it credit. I think she was hurt even I wanted the title change!!!

I'm not saying that I am against the book. But I just feel change even yes I do agree she was wrongful convicted of murder. But what title should be on Amanda novel: My life through musical mystery that a crime I never committed!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby Zrausch » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:56 pm

The ISF thread is still generating new information, 10 years later. Looks like Filomena's laptop was destroyed before the police got it.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:56 pm

Watching Netflix it is interesting to see how confirmation bias works.
1. Mignini sees the evidence of a break in and concludes that it "must" be a staged break in to divert suspicion from someone who had a key to the house.
2. Mignini sees a duvet over the body and concludes that only a woman would do that. No possibility of course that a man would do it to divert suspicions away from himself.

And it just goes downhill from there.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:14 pm

Or that the duvet was compatible with this being the work of a first-time killer.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

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

Postby Samson » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 am

Zrausch wrote:The ISF thread is still generating new information, 10 years later. Looks like Filomena's laptop was destroyed before the police got it.

How many people want their laptops to be seized in a police investigation?
Are we all happy to help in this way?
Serious question.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:13 am

Samson wrote:
Zrausch wrote:The ISF thread is still generating new information, 10 years later. Looks like Filomena's laptop was destroyed before the police got it.

How many people want their laptops to be seized in a police investigation?
Are we all happy to help in this way?
Serious question.



I still think that there is a non-trivial probability (5% or so) that the entire fiasco was due to the desire of Mignini to get his hands on that computer of Filomena (who worked for a local law firm).
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby anonshy » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:23 am

erasmus44 wrote:Watching Netflix it is interesting to see how confirmation bias works.
1. Mignini sees the evidence of a break in and concludes that it "must" be a staged break in to divert suspicion from someone who had a key to the house.
2. Mignini sees a duvet over the body and concludes that only a woman would do that. No possibility of course that a man would do it to divert suspicions away from himself.

And it just goes downhill from there.


The Duvet = Woman concept is partially correct in that, covering a body is usually done by someone who knew the victim. In this case Rudy knew who Meredith was so it also fits. The correlation to "A Woman" instead of "Someone who Knew Meredith" is the illogical inference that Piglet makes.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

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

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:41 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, I don't want you all get your hoops up on this even I know what you're going to say about this even yes I did in fact listen to it of Amanda Knox case was being interview by Linda & Ann and it was on Nancy Grace. Yep my friend it was Nancy Grace of true crime and I am going to give you detail of each part on it!!!

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/10/05/a ... n-release/

First Nancy wanted the facts even explain every detail and she wanted Linda & Ann to slow down and re explain it again!!!

Second Meredith Kercher family don't want Amanda back in Italy to visit or never come back again!!!

Third Are there loops into this case and yes we are talking about the loops in this case!!!

Fourth Nancy Grace isn't going to buy it, even she want a motion in the case and was Amanda image it into a dream or was it real!!!

Fifth and final why do people blame her in Italy!!!

So let me explain the detail of each part, even sure I was shock that I never thought 2 Amanda Knox friends or supporters were going to talk to Nancy Grace. I never saw it coming today or tomorrow even let talk about. Why doesn't the Kercher don't want Amanda because the blame her for the key reason. No the reason they blame because, even Amanda might not had good detail of not remembering who, what, where & how it all started. But coming into a huge mess that in the begining of the case was a huge of mix dna and sloppy Joe works of ruining a DNA even it pointed right at Rudy Guede even only him, even sure I went my way of 3 or 2 men killed Meredith. I knew Amanda was innocent even I couldn't prove Raffaele at all. I only believe on Amanda even what was missing!!!

Here is what missing and Nancy never ask something, well like? Why did Amanda & Raffale kiss even it was invented of the kissing cam into the sport game when you see a kissing cam through NBA, NHL, MLB or the WWE. Kindly nice would you agree and why do we need a kissing comfort crime to add to Italy even why is it Kercher family blaming her? The real reason is that Kercher family need to forget the past and move on even sure I know people get hurt of sadness ::cry:: ::cry:: ::cry:: Why are we crying is the answer because people don't freaking get it. I an't going to buy anyone, in my own words the real killer was Rudy and it was proven he ran away to committed the crime and he flew to Germany even that was something really stupid and even he did this crime, even if he did act alone. But I had hard time even I will and still go by my own theory into the basketball theory of 3 men rape Meredith and killed her. This was my theory and here is that picture right now!!!

Image

That was my theory or story. I was going with that way even if they did knew them, we would had a better way of the case and it made no sense of Amanda or Raffaele even I wasn't going to buy it. I truly believe this case was a mess of sloppy Joe and yes the world can sue me???

I don't care even I go this way and it a done deal and I prove this message and that all and talk to you soon everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:07 pm

anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Watching Netflix it is interesting to see how confirmation bias works.
1. Mignini sees the evidence of a break in and concludes that it "must" be a staged break in to divert suspicion from someone who had a key to the house.
2. Mignini sees a duvet over the body and concludes that only a woman would do that. No possibility of course that a man would do it to divert suspicions away from himself.

And it just goes downhill from there.


The Duvet = Woman concept is partially correct in that, covering a body is usually done by someone who knew the victim. In this case Rudy knew who Meredith was so it also fits. The correlation to "A Woman" instead of "Someone who Knew Meredith" is the illogical inference that Piglet makes.

Anon



But - using the "logic" he employs "analyzing" the break in - wouldn't it be consistent to assume that the perp was someone who didn't know Meredith and was seeking to divert attention in the direction of those who did know Meredith.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:33 pm

Here's a question I have that some may be able to answer:

Why did Mignini, in the Nov. 6, 2007 arrest warrant, in the section giving "reasonable suspicion" to justify the arrest (a document required for the arrest hearing), shortened and modified the text message to Patrick Lumumba on Amanda's phone to read "ci vediamo dopo"* instead of providing the actual text, "Certo. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata!"** Is there significance to leaving out the phrase "Buona serata", or changing "piu tardi" to "dopo", or are these merely unimportant typos?

Why did Mignini write in that arrest warrant***:

KNOX, in the deposition of this date, finally confessed**** to the criminal action perpetrated against Kercher; the defendant, in fact, testified as having met with Patrick, as was communicated in the message found in the memory of her cell phone operating in Perugia, the message of 8:35PM, responding to a message from DIYA arrived at 8:18PM, identified thanks to the analysis of the cell phone traffic relative to the number in use by KNOX.

In fact, in her interrogation statements, Amanda did not apparently confess to any crime, although if those statements had been true (and I am confident that they were false and the result of a coercive interrogation) she may have committed an offense in not immediately telling the police about what she had witnessed.

* http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-files-reports/
PDF: Declaration of arrest Nov. 6, 2007 (Italian)

** http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...3&image_id=545

*** http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-files-reports/
PDF: Declaration of arrest Nov. 6, 2007 (English)

**** Italian text: "alla fine, confessato"
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:20 pm

Numbers wrote:Here's a question I have that some may be able to answer:

Why did Mignini, in the Nov. 6, 2007 arrest warrant, in the section giving "reasonable suspicion" to justify the arrest (a document required for the arrest hearing), shortened and modified the text message to Patrick Lumumba on Amanda's phone to read "ci vediamo dopo"* instead of providing the actual text, "Certo. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata!"** Is there significance to leaving out the phrase "Buona serata", or changing "piu tardi" to "dopo", or are these merely unimportant typos?

Why did Mignini write in that arrest warrant***:

KNOX, in the deposition of this date, finally confessed**** to the criminal action perpetrated against Kercher; the defendant, in fact, testified as having met with Patrick, as was communicated in the message found in the memory of her cell phone operating in Perugia, the message of 8:35PM, responding to a message from DIYA arrived at 8:18PM, identified thanks to the analysis of the cell phone traffic relative to the number in use by KNOX.

In fact, in her interrogation statements, Amanda did not apparently confess to any crime, although if those statements had been true (and I am confident that they were false and the result of a coercive interrogation) she may have committed an offense in not immediately telling the police about what she had witnessed.

* http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-files-reports/
PDF: Declaration of arrest Nov. 6, 2007 (Italian)

** http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...3&image_id=545

*** http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-files-reports/
PDF: Declaration of arrest Nov. 6, 2007 (English)

**** Italian text: "alla fine, confessato"



Good catch. Another example of Perugia's "Sherlock Holmes" playing fast and loose with the facts.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:26 pm

Just reread Peter Gill's July 2016 article on the DNA issues in the case. Very powerful analysis. Gill is a well-established expert in the area - there is no equivalent article arguing that the DNA evidence was probative of guilt (Balding deals with the issue of the whether the DNA purportedly taken from the knife and tested was - as a matter of statistical analysis - Sollecito's but does not really deal with the transfer, testing, or contamination issues). Why do we still have laymen arguing this issue? Why would Gill - if he thought the evidence demonstrated actual guilt - weigh in on the side of innocence so unambiguously? Why isn't there a guilter versions of Gill arguing the opposite? I find the fact that independent experts who have examined the issue all seem to come down on the side of tossing the evidence out very powerful. I really don't care about the guilters' analysis of the DNA evidence unless they can find an expert to back it up.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:38 pm

In a chapter in a 2017 forensics book, Dan Krane and Simon Ford are also critical of the prosecution's DNA evidence.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

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

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:33 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, give a woman to speak even I am asking you right now, even because I always go with my guts of glory even sure we see a lot of tough woman and my god it just got better to see a good movie and you should go see: Battle of the Sexes and it an excellent movie. So please respond and talk to you soon everyone!!!

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=3557
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4637
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby schmidt53 » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:12 pm

carlofab wrote:Interesting catch from JREF --

Here is a 2007 story claiming the video is definitely Knox and she is "busted":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/11/12 ... ent-death/



This is an interesting catch from carlofab in May 2014 (page 419 of this forum) that didn't any replies.
It says Amanda was seen by the parking garage CCTV at 8:43 pm (the prosecution thinks the CCTV time stamp is 10 minutes fast)

It also says Lumumba phone activity at 8:38 pm puts him in the area of the cottage not his bar. They don't say that the phone activity was a text from Amanda who was at Raffaele's apartment. This was backed up by Raffaele friend who need a ride to the bus station but return at 8:40 pm was greeted at the door by Amanda to say she didn't a ride.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

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

Postby Annella » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:22 pm

The piece below is an English translation from the Italian Wikipedia page on the absolution formula's that a judge may use in acquitting a defendant. Christina Giscombe ( Vixen) over at ISF is having great difficulty accepting that the very SAME formula's can be used for Art530/1 AND Art530/2.
I am just wondering if any of you here cannot read or understand what the first sentence below states. :roll:




1 Absolute formulas (Article 530, paragraphs 1 and 2)
1.1 Absolution because the fact does not exist
1.1.1 Example
1.2 Absolution because the defendant did not commit the matter
1.2.1 Example
1.3 Absolution because the fact is not a crime
1.3.1 Examples
1.4 Absolution because the fact is not provided by law as a crime
1.4.1 Examples
1.5 Absolution because the offense was committed by an imputable or non-punishable person for another reason
1.5.1 Examples


The Italian language wiki page. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_a ... o_il_fatto


Another interesting piece, this time from the Italian Constitution. I wonder who will get punished after ECHR rules! :)

PART I
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS
TITLE I
CIVIL RELATIONS
Art. 13
Personal liberty is inviolable.
No one may be detained, inspected, or searched nor otherwise subjected
to any restriction of personal liberty except by order of the Judiciary
stating a reason and only in such cases and in such manner as provided by
the law.
In exceptional circumstances and under such conditions of necessity and
urgency as shall conclusively be defined by the law, the police may take
provisional measures that shall be referred within 48 hours to the Judiciary for
validation and which, in default of such validation in the following 48 hours,
shall be revoked and considered null and void.
Any act of physical and moral violence against a person subjected to
restriction of personal liberty shall be punished.
The law shall establish the maximum duration of preventive detention.


and...

Art. 28
Officials of the State or public agencies shall be directly responsible under
criminal, civil, and administrative law for acts committed in violation of
rights.
In such cases, civil liability shall extend to the State and to such public
agency.



https://www.senato.it/documenti/reposit ... nglese.pdf
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:06 pm

The six pillars of innocence after bra clasp and knife are determined to be non-probative by a broad consensus of experts.
1. No evidence of AK or RS in the room where the crime was committed.
2. No evidence of the crime on AK or RS, their clothes, his car, his apartment, her room, etc.
3. Overwhelming evidence of a TOD around 9:30 leaving them little time to get over there, conspire and coordinate with RG, and commit the crime. Mignini realized this and stretched the facts to argue for an 11:30 TOD.
4. No plausible motive.
5. No plausible scenario of them combining with RG - who RS had never met and who AK barely knew - to commit the crime.
6. RG's initial response when questioned by Benedetti - "Amanda wasn't involved..."
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby schmidt53 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:48 am

erasmus44 wrote:The six pillars of innocence after bra clasp and knife are determined to be non-probative by a broad consensus of experts.
1. No evidence of AK or RS in the room where the crime was committed.
2. No evidence of the crime on AK or RS, their clothes, his car, his apartment, her room, etc.
3. Overwhelming evidence of a TOD around 9:30 leaving them little time to get over there, conspire and coordinate with RG, and commit the crime. Mignini realized this and stretched the facts to argue for an 11:30 TOD.
4. No plausible motive.
5. No plausible scenario of them combining with RG - who RS had never met and who AK barely knew - to commit the crime.
6. RG's initial response when questioned by Benedetti - "Amanda wasn't involved..."

7. RG's needed a reason to be at the cottage that night. So he grabbed this idea.
https://twitter.com/Free_RudyGuede/stat ... 7066432512
Which puts him at the cottage at earlier time with AK and RS arriving later? No connection with RG proved. He can't argue innocence if he arrives with AK and RS plus Curatolo never saw them together near the basketball court.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

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

Postby Annella » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:22 am

Just when you think Christina Giscombe/Vixen/KrissyG1 CANNOT get herself further into the mire.....she comes up with this. :lol:

Research skills sadly badly missing. And Giscombe may have some serious cognitive or addiction issues given she posted this early in the morning UK time! She may be a MENSA member (she says so!), however if it were me, I'd be ashamed of myself putting my name to the following. :winks:


She claims ‘a policeman told [me] Meredith had her cut slit’, yet Raff’s story is that he told her in the car to the Questura, claiming it was a ‘cut throat’ gesture by Bastistelli.

Perhaps Battistelli also mimed a ‘body found in the closet covered by a sheet’, as well. :/

Or perhaps she ‘thought it could be true’ because she ‘imagined it’.

Interestingly, Ghirga advised her to shut up, and he wanted Mignini not to record the fact she was being advised by her lawyer not to say anything more [i.e., incriminating herself]. In fact he begs Mignini three/four times over not to record his advice to her.

So much for, ‘My lawyers were on their feet. “This interrogation is over!” Luciano shouted, swiping his arm at the air.’

LOL. As if they outrank the Public Prosecutor. Hilarious.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/10/17 at 08:23 PM | #


Facts:


How Amanda knew Meredith’s throat was cut

Testimony of Luca Altieri (Paola Grande’s boyfriend)
Page 223:

Altieri: Yes, yes, yes, after a while, you know, after the Red Cross car arrived, the Scientific Police and the Carabinieri arrived, all of them, after a while one of the two medics, I believe, the driver of the Red Cross, it wasn’t an ambulance, he came out of the crime scene, let’s say, from inside the house, speaking to one of the Carabinieri that was there outside and he described a bit about what had happened, saying… referring to the both the fact the her throat had been cut and that she had also fought back, let’s say, and from this I understood this thing.
Mignini: OK, do you remembe if Sollecito spoke to you in the Police Station, did he speak of this fact? What did he say to you?
Altieri: Look, the only exchange of words was while we were going to the Police station in the car, let’s say, where he asked me if she was dead. I was a bit shocked at the question, I responded “yes”. And then after he asked me, if I remember correctly, how she died, something of this sort, and so I explained to him this thing that I’d heard outside.

Testimony of Paola Grande (Filomena’s friend)
Page 15:

Mignini: So you didn’t see them?
Grande: No, I saw them one minute as soon as we arrived that Marco and Filomena told them, partly in Italian and partly English, to recount everything, to say everything that they remembered, to stay calm, to recount what they remembered and that would suffice. More than anything during the car journey I remember that Raffaele asked Luca if she was dead, he said yes and how she died and Luca told him that she’d had her throat cut because… I don’t know how Luca knew, however I knew about it because when the ambulance arrived, a man went in and when he came out he didn’t speak to us, but I heard him saying how she had died.
Page 19:

Maori: If you can (not heard)
Grande: It’s very simple because there were some short questions and some short answers, there was no conversation around it. Raffaele asks: “How did she die? Is she dead?” and Luca responds: “Yes”. “How did she die?”, “she had her throat cut. That’s all”.
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby Mediocrates » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:54 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Why would Gill - if he thought the evidence demonstrated actual guilt - weigh in on the side of innocence so unambiguously? Why isn't there a guilter versions of Gill arguing the opposite? I find the fact that independent experts who have examined the issue all seem to come down on the side of tossing the evidence out very powerful. I really don't care about the guilters' analysis of the DNA evidence unless they can find an expert to back it up.


Good question!

HOW and WHY did Gill, who now works as a consultant-for-hire, come to make repeated media appearances in connection with this case?! (He certainly did not appear in court to face cross-examination.)

I've also got some questions for YOU, Sir:

1) if we do not know how or why Gill came to make public assertions about this case, what weight can we assign to his opinion given that his connection to this case, and his assertions about it, have never been tested by way of cross-examination?

2) are you aware of ANY jurisdiction that allows police and/or prosecutors to seek out experts-for-hire to appear in the media (but not in the court room) to back the state's case?

3) can you point out any example where Gill attempts to evaluate the degree to which the non-DNA evidence (example, lies to police) reinforces/ undermines one or other of the competing interpretations of the DNA evidence?

(For example, why should the trier of fact side with a lower probability tertiary transfer theory (sloppy cops) rather than a higher probability primary transfer theory (murder &/or staging), given that the defendant also lied to police?)
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:01 pm

Mediocrates wrote:
(For example, why should the trier of fact side with a lower probability tertiary transfer theory (sloppy cops) rather than a higher probability primary transfer theory (murder &/or staging), given that the defendant also lied to police?)


The FOA doesn't view the non DNA evidence the way you do, obviously. Something you don't seem to get after repeated attempts here.

Specifically we..

-Don't think Raffaele freely lied, but that he was very strongly pressured into taking away Amanda's alibi
-Think the evidence at the crime scene overwhelmingly demonstrates Rudy's involvement as a single attacker
-Think the break-in is a legitimate break-in and not staged
-Think all the evidence alleged against Knox and Raffaele is what you would expect from a prosecution desperate to prove culpability of pre-ordained suspects, but not what you would expect if they actually were involved

Since you cannot or will not accept the above, the discussion of the DNA is pretty irrelevant.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:36 pm

Mediocrates wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Why would Gill - if he thought the evidence demonstrated actual guilt - weigh in on the side of innocence so unambiguously? Why isn't there a guilter versions of Gill arguing the opposite? I find the fact that independent experts who have examined the issue all seem to come down on the side of tossing the evidence out very powerful. I really don't care about the guilters' analysis of the DNA evidence unless they can find an expert to back it up.


Good question!

HOW and WHY did Gill, who now works as a consultant-for-hire, come to make repeated media appearances in connection with this case?! (He certainly did not appear in court to face cross-examination.)

I've also got some questions for YOU, Sir:

1) if we do not know how or why Gill came to make public assertions about this case, what weight can we assign to his opinion given that his connection to this case, and his assertions about it, have never been tested by way of cross-examination?

2) are you aware of ANY jurisdiction that allows police and/or prosecutors to seek out experts-for-hire to appear in the media (but not in the court room) to back the state's case?

3) can you point out any example where Gill attempts to evaluate the degree to which the non-DNA evidence (example, lies to police) reinforces/ undermines one or other of the competing interpretations of the DNA evidence?

(For example, why should the trier of fact side with a lower probability tertiary transfer theory (sloppy cops) rather than a higher probability primary transfer theory (murder &/or staging), given that the defendant also lied to police?)

This is a bit of a non sequitor as a post. Dr. Peter Gill wrote for the leading forensic journal in the world, one where one must go through a peer review process even to make it into the journal.

But peer review doesn't stop there. Once published any other expert can wade in and pick it apart.

It's a canard to say that Dr. Gill's analysis is no good because he was not cross examined. He's in a profession where "cross-examination" is build in for peer review.

The fact is this - there are no forensic-DNA experts who support Stefanoni's original forensic work in this case. None. Both Conti & Vecchiotti (court appointed) and Dr. Gill trash Stefanoni's work. No one supports Stefanoni's work.
    “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: 8058
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:45 pm

It's not just Gill - it's also Krane, Hampikian, Budlowie and the independent experts appointed by the court in Italy.
I don't know exactly what prompted them to come forward but I would guess it is their perception that an injustice might arise.
I know of no rule preventing the prosecution from seeking support from outside experts. And - of course - an expert who strongly believed the prosecution was correct can simply come forward on his or her own. To some degree, Balding and Leila Schnepps did this. Leila argued strongly and defensibly for a second test on another location on the knife to see if it would reveal DNA of MK and indicated that this would be a big factor in the credibility of the case. The second test was done and no DNA of MK was found.
Using other evidence to "reinforce" one side of a forensic evidence dispute is both unworkable and very dangerous. For example, it could be equally well argued that the absence of motive as conceded by Mignini should weigh in favor of secondary or tertiary transfer rather than primary transfer. The potential for this kind of other evidence to be marshalled by one side or the other is endless and invites a relitigation of the entire case in the context of evaluating each and every piece of forensic evidence.
More pernicious is the danger that a forensic scientist will succumb to confirmation bias and "tilt" his analysis one way or the other leading to a cascade of errors as subsequent pieces of evidence are similarly analyzed with a biased mindset.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:06 am

The errors in forensic practice in the case against Knox and Sollecito, including the forensically improper gathering of the DNA samples; the way the samples were tested by Stefanoni, using techniques contrary to internationally accepted methods, in ways known to be highly likely to produce erroneous results; the clear presence of contamination in the few control runs where Stefanoni provided data; the failure of Stefanoni to report the raw data - in defiance of written requests from the judges; her suppression of many test results; the evidence that certain key tests were apparently rerun without explicit reporting by Stefanoni; and finally the apparent intentional destruction of the remaining DNA on key exhibits - the bra clasps; are together overwhelming indicators that there was no credible DNA evidence against Knox or Sollecito.

In a fair trial, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights, the alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito would not be admissible because of the factors listed above. Indeed, the Marasca CSC panel, in its final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kecher, indicated that the alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito was of no probative value; in this, the Marasca CSC panel followed the published peer-reviewed professional opinion of Peter Gill and the publicized opinion of a number of experts in forensic DNA testing. No expert in forensic DNA testing has publicized a different view. Balding is an expert in the statistics of DNA profiles, but has acknowledged that he is not an expert in the forensics methods themselves.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:43 am

A recent ECHR judgment relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case:

Criminal conviction based on a single statement by a fugitive witness was in violation of the right to a fair trial

In today’s [12 Oct 2017] Chamber judgment in the case of Cafagna v. Italy (application no. 26073/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
a violation of Article 6 §§1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and right to examine witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction on the basis of a statement made by an individual who claimed to have been assaulted by him but who did not give evidence at the hearing.
The Court found that the domestic courts, despite conducting a rigorous examination, had been unable to conduct a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of the witness’s statements. It held that Mr Cafagna’s defence rights had been restricted in a manner incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial.

Decision of the Court
{Violation of} Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
The Court observed that C.C. {who alleged to police officer L.R. that the applicant had punched him in the course of a robbery} had been questioned by the carabinieri but had never appeared before the trial court {C.C. had been convicted in absentia in a separate matter, did not respond to requests to appear before the courts in the applicant's trials and could not be found by the authorities}. Therefore, neither the latter {trial court} nor the applicant had been able to observe him during questioning in order to assess his credibility and the reliability of his statements.
The Court also noted that the domestic courts had based their decisions not just on C.C.’s statements but also on the testimony of the carabiniere L.R. It observed that the Court of Appeal had examined C.C.’s credibility with care before concluding that his statements were sufficiently reliable.
Nevertheless, the Court considered that the examination by the domestic courts of the evidence of the applicant’s guilt had not been sufficient, by itself, to compensate for the fact that the witness had not been questioned by the defence. However thorough the examination conducted by the trial court, it was not capable of providing the information that could be gleaned from a confrontation at a public hearing between the accused and his or her accuser, and hence of testing the reliability of the evidence. The Court therefore concluded that Mr Cafagna’s defence rights had been restricted in a manner incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial, and found a violation of his right to a fair trial.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-5881806-7499962%22]}
PDF - ECHR press release. Note that the judgment text is available in French only.

There are two relevant points to the Knox - Sollecito case:

1. PGP continually claim that the Italian courts are, essentially, infallible. That's obviously not true for the case summarized above. Italy's Constitution guarantees adversarial trials where the accused has the right to summon witnesses. Obviously, that guarantee was violated in this case, but the Italian courts did not recognize that there was a violation. Instead, they resorted to an inquisitional approach of reading the case file with regard to the witness C.C., who was the alleged victim.

2. The Nencini court attempted a similar inquisitorial approach in the trial of Knox and Sollecito using the result of Guede's fast-track trial. This was pointed out as a violation of Italian law by the Marasca CSC panel, and was one of their several reasons for quashing the Nencini verdict.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:45 am

The attempted importation of the "multiple assailant" finding from the Guede case to the Knox case was a procedural atrocity.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:25 am

erasmus44 wrote:The attempted importation of the "multiple assailant" finding from the Guede case to the Knox case was a procedural atrocity.

Someone smarter than me a few years ago on JREF summarized the while case against Sollecito and Knox as being judicially generated.

I'm not sure if I could make that case, but when one considers the way "multiple assailants" became a stipulated fact at the Rudy trial, and then a judicial fact within the Sollecito/Knox trials.....

One wonders.
    “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: 8058
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:36 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:The attempted importation of the "multiple assailant" finding from the Guede case to the Knox case was a procedural atrocity.

Someone smarter than me a few years ago on JREF summarized the while case against Sollecito and Knox as being judicially generated.

I'm not sure if I could make that case, but when one considers the way "multiple assailants" became a stipulated fact at the Rudy trial, and then a judicial fact within the Sollecito/Knox trials.....

One wonders.


It might have been this post.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby Zrausch » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:39 pm

Jackie shouldn't be allowed to post about the DNA until he can explain why he thinks Raffaele called the police ~20 minutes after they already arrived. (Just one of many really stupid things he actually believes).
Zrausch
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby sept79 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:50 pm

Numbers wrote:The errors in forensic practice in the case against Knox and Sollecito, including the forensically improper gathering of the DNA samples; the way the samples were tested by Stefanoni, using techniques contrary to internationally accepted methods, in ways known to be highly likely to produce erroneous results; the clear presence of contamination in the few control runs where Stefanoni provided data; the failure of Stefanoni to report the raw data - in defiance of written requests from the judges; her suppression of many test results; the evidence that certain key tests were apparently rerun without explicit reporting by Stefanoni; and finally the apparent intentional destruction of the remaining DNA on key exhibits - the bra clasps; are together overwhelming indicators that there was no credible DNA evidence against Knox or Sollecito.



There's nothing else that needs to be said other than "why did Stefanoni feel compelled to generate erroneous results"?
sept79
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 7:16 am

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

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:52 pm

Zrausch wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:The attempted importation of the "multiple assailant" finding from the Guede case to the Knox case was a procedural atrocity.

Someone smarter than me a few years ago on JREF summarized the while case against Sollecito and Knox as being judicially generated.

I'm not sure if I could make that case, but when one considers the way "multiple assailants" became a stipulated fact at the Rudy trial, and then a judicial fact within the Sollecito/Knox trials.....

One wonders.


It might have been this post.

That may be the one.

But I have a memory of seeing another, circa 2010 which used the actual phrase "judicially generated". However, the meaning is similar to the phrase Myriad had used:

Myriad wrote:"There was a lot of claimed evidence, but it wasn't evidence about the crime. It was all abstract, generated by the process itself."
    “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: 8058
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Previous

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests