Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011


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

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:32 am


This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.
    “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: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby european neighbour » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:12 pm

Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?
european neighbour
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

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

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:23 pm

european neighbour wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?

Italy's judiciary continues to decide things based on what someone else knows nothing about.

The ONLY thing Raffaele knew about either the murder or the investigation leading to his arrest is what the cops told him. To say that he "lied" to them is simply bizarre - the police's own "theories of the crime" changed.
    “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: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:34 pm

european neighbour wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?

Yes, this case may continue for years.

The next step would appear to be an appeal to the CSC, if Raffaele pursues it.

After that, the ECHR. Compensation for unfair detention is a right under the Convention.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:11 pm

Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?

Yes, this case may continue for years.

The next step would appear to be an appeal to the CSC, if Raffaele pursues it.

After that, the ECHR. Compensation for unfair detention is a right under the Convention.


The relevant Convention articles include but may not be limited to: Articles 5.5, 5.1c, 5.1a, 5.2, 5.3, 6.3a, 6.3b and 6.3c.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:34 pm

Relevant European Convention on Human Rights Articles:

5.5 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.

5.1 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:

(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;

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a
competent court;

5.2 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.

5.3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article [5] 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.

6.3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he
understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of
his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of
his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay
for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests
of justice so require;
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:58 pm

The bottom line (PQM, For these reasons section) of the decision by the Court of Appeal of Florence to deny Raffaele Sollecito's request for compensation for unfair detention:

Corte de Appello di Firenze
Terza Sezione Penale
Camera di Consiglio Penale
....

P.Q.M.
La corte, visto l'art 341 c.p.p.,
respinge la richiesta di riparazione per l'ingiusta detenzione patita, avanzata da Sollecito Raffaele nato a Bari ..., elettivamente domiciliato in Roma ... nello studio del difensore di fiducia avv Giulia Bongiorno, e condanna il medesimo al pagamento delle spese a cui ha dato causa.
....

Firenze, 27.1.2017

Il Presidente,
dr.ssa Silvia Martuscelli

Google translation (with my assistance):

Court of Appeal of Florence
Third Criminal Division
Criminal Board Room
.....
P.Q.M. {For these reasons}
The court, having regard to Article 341* Code of Criminal Procedure,
rejects the request for redress for the wrongful imprisonment suffered, advanced by Raffaele Sollecito born in Bari ..., address for service in Rome ... in the office of defense lawyer of trust Giulia Bongiorno, and condemns him only for the payment of costs to which the request gave cause.
....

Florence, 01/27/2017

President,
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli

* A typo for Article 314 (Compensation for unfair detention, Prerequisites for and methods of decisions)?
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby carlofab » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:27 pm

Numbers,

RE: "and condemns him only for the payment of costs to which the request gave cause."

Does that mean he must pay court costs?
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:34 pm

carlofab wrote:Numbers,

RE: "and condemns him only for the payment of costs to which the request gave cause."

Does that mean he must pay court costs?


I believe that is the meaning.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:45 pm

Apparently an appeal to the CSC will be filed:

The lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, who defends the young {Sollecito} with Luca Maori, has already announced an appeal in cassation. Reserving a more complete reading of the document, Bongiorno speaks of "a multitude of errors in the reconstruction of the facts, as well as document-related." {Google translated}

Original Italian:

L’avvocato Giulia Bongiorno, che difende il giovane insieme a Luca Maori, ha già annunciato ricorso in Cassazione. Riservandosi una più completa lettura del documento, Bongiorno parla di “una moltitudine di errori nella ricostruzione dei fatti, oltreché a livello documentale”.

Source: http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017/02 ... i/3385125/
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:27 am

Questions that need to be answered by the Italian authorities based on ECHR case law: when Raffaele was called into the police station, was he interviewed as a witness or interrogated as a suspect? If he was a witness initially, when during the interview did he become a suspect? Did the police follow Italian procedural law regarding the questioning of suspects either at the beginning or at any other time during the questioning? For example, when was Raffaele officially told he was a subject of investigations, and that he should retain a lawyer (CPP Article 63)? The police took (seized) his pocket knife, cell phone, and shoes, if I understand correctly, in the course of the questioning. These actions would indicate he was a suspect by the time such seizures without a warrant occurred. What was the effect of denying him a lawyer during his interrogation and initial custody, and was that consistent with his rights under Italian law and ECHR case law? Did he have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense for the arrest hearing?
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby european neighbour » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:27 am

Numbers wrote:Yes, this case may continue for years.

And John Kercher requires Amanda and Raffaele to cease speaking? This isn't the case of his daughter anymore, this is Amanda and Raffaele vs. Italy.
european neighbour
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:08 am

Numbers wrote:Questions that need to be answered by the Italian authorities based on ECHR case law: when Raffaele was called into the police station, was he interviewed as a witness or interrogated as a suspect? If he was a witness initially, when during the interview did he become a suspect? Did the police follow Italian procedural law regarding the questioning of suspects either at the beginning or at any other time during the questioning? For example, when was Raffaele officially told he was a subject of investigations, and that he should retain a lawyer (CPP Article 63)? The police took (seized) his pocket knife, cell phone, and shoes, if I understand correctly, in the course of the questioning. These actions would indicate he was a suspect by the time such seizures without a warrant occurred. What was the effect of denying him a lawyer during his interrogation and initial custody, and was that consistent with his rights under Italian law and ECHR case law? Did he have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense for the arrest hearing?



The case for compensation is going as might be expected in Italy: The Florence Court of Appeal apparently did not consider the possibility that the police and prosecution violated Sollecito's rights as a defendant. The lower level court looks to the higher level court (CSC) to correct its errors, and the CSC may look to the ECHR to address any violation of rights. This enables the Italian courts to give the appearance of defying international pressures to administer Italian law according to the Italian Constitution, which I imagine satisfies the nationalism and authoritarianism of political cliques within the Italian courts.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:09 am

ECHR position on detention, especially regarding "arbitrary" detention:

77. No detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1, the notion of “arbitrariness” in this context extending beyond the lack of conformity with national law. As a consequence, a deprivation of liberty which is lawful under domestic law can still be arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention. While the Court has not previously formulated a global definition as to what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute “arbitrariness” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, key principles have been developed on a case-by-case basis. ....

78. One general principle established in the case-law is that detention will be “arbitrary” where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities ... or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly ....

Source: MOOREN v. GERMANY[GC] 11364/03
___
So the relevant questions for the ECHR will include, but not necessarily be limited to, for Sollecito, as for Knox, did the authorities use deception or bad faith in arresting and detaining them, and did the authorities properly follow Italian procedural laws, including but not limited to CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188?
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:12 am

"While the court {Florence Court of Appeals} acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... th-kercher
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:37 am

Numbers wrote:"While the court {Florence Court of Appeals} acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... th-kercher

Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."
    “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: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:26 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:"While the court {Florence Court of Appeals} acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... th-kercher

Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."


I don't know how long it will be before the CSC passes judgment on the appeals to the Florence Court decision not to grant Raffaele compensation. Let's suppose its about 2 years from now. If the CSC confirms the refusal, the next step would be for Raffaele to lodge a complaint with the ECHR. That would likely take 2 or 3 years or more to reach judgment. The time required to get redress of a miscarriage of justice is daunting.

One motivation for the Italian courts to slow down the awarding of compensation for unfair detention may be to protect Italy's budget. Since there is no bail in Italy, many accused persons - including the innocent - are detained until trial and afterward if there is a provisional conviction, and of course, trials and appeals in Italy can last many years. The total payments for unfair detention must be quite large, and the courts may want to help keep them low by denying requests for compensation whenever laws or facts can be stretched to do so.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:01 pm

Bill Williams wrote:Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."


What's that quote from? And what's its context? It can't mean what I think it means.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby anonshy » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:10 pm

Have to be honest, I could care less if RS or AK get any financial compensation, it is so minor in scope compared to their innocence and their freedom.

Let the PMF and the other wacko's wax poetic on this so call victory, they can have it, let them cling to something and be gone!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:00 pm

I don't really care about any of the remaining cases in Italy, which has proven itself judicially dysfunctional. I am still interested in the ECHR though, because it's an outside court re-examining the interrogation, which is the crux of the entire case, as well as the contested M&B report.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:26 pm

Zrausch wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."


What's that quote from? And what's its context? It can't mean what I think it means.


The quote is from the Marasca CSC panel motivation report that acquitted Amanda and Raffaele of the murder/rape charges. It's in Section 2.2, page 23 of the English translation, and it pertains to Mignini questioning Amanda on Nov. 5/6.

"...the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures...."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
Link to Supreme Court Motivation Report - PDF
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:31 pm

Oh yeah, thanks. I thought for a second it was in the latest decision.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby Annella » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:05 am

Amanda's words 1 day before Valentine's Day in 2014.


It’s interesting that this week dedicated to love should be the same week that a hate campaign is established on Facebook. It consists of photographs of various individuals, supposedly Perugian, holding placards reading Perugia Vi Odia (“Perugia Hates You”). They mimic a photograph I posted to my own website and Twitter account that professes Raffaele’s and my innocence to the Italian people despite the latest guilty verdict handed down by the Florentine Court of Appeals on January 30th.

The hate campaign was quickly reported in Perugia Today, an online publication also responsible for coining La Maledizione Amanda (“The Amanda Curse”) in a number of its articles, a term referring to the bad publicity Perugia has received due to the prolonged scandal that is the Meredith Kercher murder case, publicity which the publication attributes directly to me. The article claimed the hate campaign hoped their message would reach me and perhaps prompt a response.

Usually I don’t respond to hateful messages and rather let them speak for themselves. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that I’ve received hateful messages from proud, irrational people. Proud, because their sentiment is automatic defensiveness against legitimate criticism. Irrational, because criticism of the Meredith Kercher murder case scandal usually has nothing to do with these individuals personally and the hate they feel is the expression of irrational emotional investment that is based on impression rather than objective evidence.

There are two reasons I bother to acknowledge these messages of hate in particular. The first is because these individuals claim to represent the feelings of Perugia as a whole. The second is because, while their disagreement with my declaration of innocence is implied, what these individuals choose to explicitly express is not a judgment, but a feeling that is irrelevant, if not impedimentary, to judgment. This is, unfortunately, not a surprise.

Nothing is more expected than to be told I am hated because hate reflects the nature of the Meredith Kercher murder case scandal. Hate, in addition to pride, is one of the few things that can explain the prosecution’s biased investigation and persecution of Raffaele and me despite a distinct lack of objective evidence incriminating us and a distinct abundance of objective evidence incriminating a single, separate person: Rudy Guede. Whether they mean to or not, these Perugia Vi Odia people, who bear their emotions on placards, are helping me and the world to understand what has really happened in this case.

Colpevolisti (“guilters”) lose their credibility once they reveal that their stance is founded upon irrational emotion rather than objective evidence. Justice cannot be expected to result from thinking tainted by pride and hate.

I know for a fact that not everyone in Perugia hates me or believes I’m guilty. My family and I have received tremendous support from many Italians and Perugians in the form of verbal and written messages of sympathy and solidarity, legal and linguistic assistance, generous hospitality, and friendship.

Ironically, Perugia Vi Odia simply reminds me of the part of Perugia they don’t represent. My love extends to the clear-headed, compassionate, and generous Perugia that my family and I came to know throughout my wrongful persecution and imprisonment at the hands of certain proud and hateful authorities, empowered by certain proud and hateful individuals.

Perugia, ti voglio bene.


http://www.amandaknox.com/2014/02/13/pe ... glio-bene/
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:48 am

Zrausch wrote:I don't really care about any of the remaining cases in Italy, which has proven itself judicially dysfunctional. I am still interested in the ECHR though, because it's an outside court re-examining the interrogation, which is the crux of the entire case, as well as the contested M&B report.


I agree the EHCR will have the final say. Even if they award $1.00 as compensation but rule their rights were violated (which is obviously the case), I will be happy!

They have been found innocent of the crimes, EHCR will clarify the mechanisms that led to the injustices cast on these 2 individuals.

On thing I find very active in my thoughts of late is how Trump's Alternative facts, and the state of truth in the media, all vector's back to the advent of digital and social media and in this case in particular. It didn't start with this case, but this case is full of examples!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:50 pm

anonshy wrote:
Zrausch wrote:I don't really care about any of the remaining cases in Italy, which has proven itself judicially dysfunctional. I am still interested in the ECHR though, because it's an outside court re-examining the interrogation, which is the crux of the entire case, as well as the contested M&B report.


I agree the EHCR will have the final say. Even if they award $1.00 as compensation but rule their rights were violated (which is obviously the case), I will be happy!

They have been found innocent of the crimes, EHCR will clarify the mechanisms that led to the injustices cast on these 2 individuals.

On thing I find very active in my thoughts of late is how Trump's Alternative facts, and the state of truth in the media, all vector's back to the advent of digital and social media and in this case in particular. It didn't start with this case, but this case is full of examples!

Anon


This is the most important part to those of us who wish to see justice - which includes the acknowledgement of the violation of rights by the Italian authorities and the institution of measures to prevent such violations in the future.

I am sure that Amanda and Raffaele and their respective families would also much appreciate receiving the compensation that they are rightly entitled to under Italian and international (ECHR) law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:07 pm

Some interesting reading, if your into that kind of thing

https://www.wwtdd.com/2017/02/amanda-knox-gay-for-the-stay

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

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

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:06 pm

To Everyone

Hey everyone, I want an answer from Peter Quennell and he got 28 hours left to pick best picture and if he doesn't pick a winner of best picture in that time zone. He going to lose the bet the clock start ticking right now!!!

My pick is already done and I will say it again. The winner of best picture is Lala land!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

DNA contamination in the Adam Scott case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:24 pm

In his book Misleading DNA Evidence, Peter Gill discusses the case of Adam Scott on pp. 15-16, 21-27, and elsewhere. Mr. Scott's DNA and the DNA of her boyfriend was found during an exam of a rape victim. Semen was also identified. However, the prosecution/forensic scientists made the error of thinking that mixed DNA meant mixed semen. Mr. Scott had never been to the city in question and had alibi evidence, yet was convicted. Later it was found that the lab had mistakenly reused a plastic tray containing Mr. Scott's DNA from a spitting incident. They had also ignored a positive result from a negative control.

Professor Gill also quoted (p. 26) a 2013 paper* which stated, "Taken together, we discourage to associate cell types and donors from peak heights when performing RNA and DNA profiling."
*Harteveldt et al., (2013) "RNA cell typing and DNA profiling of mixed samples: can cell types be associated?" Sci Justice 53, 261-269.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

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

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:10 am

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, courts in the United States overturned 165 wrongful convictions in 2016, which broke 2015’s record of 149 corrected wrongful convictions. It is promising to see that the numbers continue to be on the rise. If you look at data over the past 25 years, we are now seeing substantial progress.

Over the past quarter century, America has incarcerated more people than any civilized nation on earth. A disturbing number of those incarcerations have been wrongful convictions. Hundreds of exonerations can be credited to advanced DNA technology. But research on topics like, bite mark evidence, fire investigation technology, and shaken baby syndrome, have all played a significant role as well. The ability to distribute information via the internet has also proven to be an invaluable resource when fighting wrongful convictions.

Exoneration statistics show that we are on the right track, but we have a long way to go. We need to correct the mistakes we have made, all while working to reforming the system which allowed those mistakes to occur in the first place. Sadly, the wrongful conviction problem is far more pervasive than most people realize, and even with increased interest, most cases continue to lack the attention they warrant. Many innocent people remain in prison. They need others to be their voice. They need you. Please join us in the fight to free the innocent.

http://www.injusticeanywhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/InjusticeAnywhereNewsletter2017-1.pdf

Image
"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: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:35 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:According to the National Registry of Exonerations, courts in the United States overturned 165 wrongful convictions in 2016, which broke 2015’s record of 149 corrected wrongful convictions. It is promising to see that the numbers continue to be on the rise. If you look at data over the past 25 years, we are now seeing substantial progress.

Over the past quarter century, America has incarcerated more people than any civilized nation on earth. A disturbing number of those incarcerations have been wrongful convictions. Hundreds of exonerations can be credited to advanced DNA technology. But research on topics like, bite mark evidence, fire investigation technology, and shaken baby syndrome, have all played a significant role as well. The ability to distribute information via the internet has also proven to be an invaluable resource when fighting wrongful convictions.

Exoneration statistics show that we are on the right track, but we have a long way to go. We need to correct the mistakes we have made, all while working to reforming the system which allowed those mistakes to occur in the first place. Sadly, the wrongful conviction problem is far more pervasive than most people realize, and even with increased interest, most cases continue to lack the attention they warrant. Many innocent people remain in prison. They need others to be their voice. They need you. Please join us in the fight to free the innocent.

http://www.injusticeanywhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/InjusticeAnywhereNewsletter2017-1.pdf

Image

On on channel last night was the Oscar's debacle.

On another was 60 Minutes (CBS) interviewing Anthony Ray Hinton, Ken Ireland and Julie Baumer, about their experiences as exonerees.
    “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: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:40 pm

On ISF, poster MDDVS has pointed out that Knox v. Italy is listed in the current Country Profile of Italy.

The Country Profile may be found at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Italy_ENG.pdf

One may also go to the ECHR Home Page, http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
and click the link (under Quick Links) to Factsheets & Country Profiles, then select Country Profiles, and Italy (English version).
___
I thank MDDVS for pointing this out. I had not looked at the Country Profile of Italy in some time.

Here is the full text of this summary, from page 12 of the Country Profile:

"Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13)
Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Thus, the case of Knox v. Italy is proceeding and is considered significant, otherwise it would not be listed in the Country Profile of Italy.

The importance level as listed in the Case Details remains 3, which indicates that the ECHR considers that the judgment will rely upon existing case law and will probably not generate new case law and thus may not be listed in Case Reports, which summarizes judged cases that have generated new case law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:47 pm

The time required for the ECHR case of KNOX c. ITALIE 76577/13 to be judged is of interest.

This case has entered the ECHR system, having been lodged in November, 2013, and has met the preliminary requirements for admissibility, as evidenced by its being Communicated to Italy on 29 April 2016. Since the initial Communication, it's been Communicated 2 more times to Italy to gather more information, as shown in the ECHR database. The final admissibility and judgment of merits will be given at some future date, since the ECHR has a large backlog of cases (about 84,000). As a guess, the publication of the judgment may occur in 2017 or 2018.

Some guilters post misleading information that the case has not been reviewed at all; obviously, a Communicated Case has survived an initial ECHR review.

In comparison, here is the ECHR timing for some other cases against Italy:

CESTARO c. ITALIE 6884/11 was lodged 28 January 2011 and Communicated to Italy 18 December 2012 (almost 2 years after being introduced). There was only one Communication. The judgment was published 07 April 2015, about 2.25 years after the (initial) Communication. The case relates to police brutality (violation of Convention Article 3).

TALPIS c. ITALIE 41237/14 was lodged 23 May 2014 and Communicated to Italy 26 August 2015, about 1.25 years later. There were a total of 5 Communications to Italy in this case. The judgment was published 02 March 2017, about 1.6 years after the (initial) Communication. The case concerns discrimination against women by the Italian authorities in ignoring a case of domestic violence, which led to the severe injury of the woman and the death of her son at the hands of her husband, who had a history of violence that the woman had complained of to the police and which they ignored until after the murder and assault. (Violations of Articles 2, 3, and 14 in conjunction with 2 and 3.)

AZZOLINA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE et 1 autre affaire 28923/09 67599/10 was lodged 27 May 2009 and 09 March 2010 (2 different applications) and was Communicated to Italy (as a single case, combined because the facts had similarities) 18 December 2012 (about 3.5 and 2.75 years later, respectively). There has been only the initial Communication to date. There has been no judgment published to date (as of about 4.1 years after Communication). The case relates to police brutality (violation of Article 3) and lack of an effective remedy (violation of Article 13).

Conclusion: The time between Communication and Judgment in ECHR cases varies considerably among cases. In this small sample, it was as low as about 1.6 years and as high as more that 4 years (and counting). Thus, the time anticipated to elapse between the Communication of Knox v. Italy and the anticipated publication of the judgment is not unusual.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:08 am

Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:19 am

On ISF, Bill Williams has posted: Sollecito's lawyer asks for Guede's expulsion from Italy, with source: http://www.newspuglia.it/cronaca/3091-a ... talia.html

An excerpt from a Google translation of the article:

The attorney Maori said that "once purged his sentence, Rudy Guede must be expelled from Italy." Because? "Many foreigners are expelled from our country for far less serious offenses to murder for which he was convicted of the Ivorian. I will ask the police headquarters in Perugia of action to undertake the removal procedures of Guede, who is not Italian citizen, just finished serving his sentence. "
_____
There was a discussion on ISF some time ago about whether or not Guede was an Italian citizen. He is not a citizen of Italy, according to this statement.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:49 pm

Can you get citizenship while in prison?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:43 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Can you get citizenship while in prison?


Desert Fox, according to a Wikipedia article on naturalization in Italy:

{Becoming an Italian Citizen} Through naturalisation:

A person who has been legally resident in Italy for at least ten years may apply for and be granted naturalisation as an Italian citizen if he or she does not have a criminal record and has sufficient financial resources. The residence requirement is reduced to three years for descendants of Italian citizen grandparents and for foreigners born in Italy, four years for nationals of EU member states, five years for refugees or stateless persons, and seven years for someone who was adopted as a child by an Italian citizen.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nationality_law
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:21 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:57 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.


The terminology does seem odd now that you point to it.

I'll attempt to explain some of the terminology in your quoted sentence. I would welcome Chris or TomZ or others who may wish to correct my anticipated errors.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a chemical method to get a tiny bit of DNA to double itself many times until there is a large enough amount available to conduct a reliable DNA profile test. To conduct a reliable DNA profile test, the DNA to be tested must be present in the right amount - not too little, nor too much. Therefore, when a forensic worker needs to test an "unknown" DNA sample which has been extracted from some biological trace - a cheek swab or a blood stain swab, for example - there needs to be a measurement of the amount of DNA dissolved in the extraction fluid. This is done by taking a fractional part of known volume from the extraction fluid containing the whole "unknown" DNA sample obtained from a trace. By measuring the amount of DNA in the fractional part, the amount of DNA in the whole sample can be calculated. Then, using appropriate dilutions (or concentrations) the volume of the whole sample remaining can be adjusted to be within the proper range to provide samples for reliable DNA profile testing.

"Non-template" means that no DNA was added to the control sample; the control sample only consists of the liquid solutions (reagents) used in the PCR method. Fluorescent dyes are included in the reagents; these dyes give off more fluorescence when there is more DNA present. This kind of control is useful in checking for any DNA contamination that may have been introduced (inadvertently) into the DNA profile and DNA quantification test samples.

The quantification run uses the PCR method on a set of "positive" samples with a known amount of DNA (generally supplied by the lab equipment manufacturer) added to each sample, and another sample that contains a fractional part of the "unknown" DNA sample to be tested. This fractional part is a known fractional volume of the larger volume of solution containing all the "unknown" DNA obtained from one specimen, such as a cheek swab or a blood stain swab.

The positive control samples, a non-template control sample, and the "unknown" sample, all containing PCR reagents, are then repeatedly subjected to the PCR method, until for each sample containing DNA, the amount of DNA in that sample crosses a predetermined threshold level based upon fluorescence. The non-template (no DNA) control should go to the limit of cycling (usually set at 50 cycles) without its fluorescence crossing the threshold. Using a mathematical interpolation method, the amount of DNA in the "unknown" sample is calculated from the number of PCR cycles required for it to cross the threshold compared to the number of cycles required for each of the positive controls to cross the threshold. The advantage of this PCR quantification method is that it allows very small amounts of DNA to be accurately measured.

Of relevance to this case, the police forensic technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative PCR equipment was not functioning properly, used a much less adequate method to determine the amount of DNA in some samples, including the sample from the kitchen knife blade, the alleged murder weapon. She used a direct fluorescence method (Qubit fluorometer) which was unable to measure very small amounts of DNA. The amount of alleged DNA she reported on the knife blade registered as "too low" to measure - meaning there may have been no DNA present in the sample - but she proceeded to conduct one DNA profile test on the remaining knife blade sample.

The amount of DNA in the knife blade sample was about the same as that in one of the non-template (no DNA) controls that Stefanoni disclosed - without any comment - in her quantification report. The disclosure may perhaps have been inadvertent, because quantification results for many of the non-template controls were not reported ("suppressed"), although all such forensic data should be reported based upon ECHR case law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:21 pm

Numbers wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.


The terminology does seem odd now that you point to it.

I'll attempt to explain some of the terminology in your quoted sentence. I would welcome Chris or TomZ or others who may wish to correct my anticipated errors.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a chemical method to get a tiny bit of DNA to double itself many times until there is a large enough amount available to conduct a reliable DNA profile test. To conduct a reliable DNA profile test, the DNA to be tested must be present in the right amount - not too little, nor too much. Therefore, when a forensic worker needs to test an "unknown" DNA sample which has been extracted from some biological trace - a cheek swab or a blood stain swab, for example - there needs to be a measurement of the amount of DNA dissolved in the extraction fluid. This is done by taking a fractional part of known volume from the extraction fluid containing the whole "unknown" DNA sample obtained from a trace. By measuring the amount of DNA in the fractional part, the amount of DNA in the whole sample can be calculated. Then, using appropriate dilutions (or concentrations) the volume of the whole sample remaining can be adjusted to be within the proper range to provide samples for reliable DNA profile testing.

"Non-template" means that no DNA was added to the control sample; the control sample only consists of the liquid solutions (reagents) used in the PCR method. Fluorescent dyes are included in the reagents; these dyes give off more fluorescence when there is more DNA present. This kind of control is useful in checking for any DNA contamination that may have been introduced (inadvertently) into the DNA profile and DNA quantification test samples.

The quantification run uses the PCR method on a set of "positive" samples with a known amount of DNA (generally supplied by the lab equipment manufacturer) added to each sample, and another sample that contains a fractional part of the "unknown" DNA sample to be tested. This fractional part is a known fractional volume of the larger volume of solution containing all the "unknown" DNA obtained from one specimen, such as a cheek swab or a blood stain swab.

The positive control samples, a non-template control sample, and the "unknown" sample, all containing PCR reagents, are then repeatedly subjected to the PCR method, until for each sample containing DNA, the amount of DNA in that sample crosses a predetermined threshold level based upon fluorescence. The non-template (no DNA) control should go to the limit of cycling (usually set at 50 cycles) without its fluorescence crossing the threshold. Using a mathematical interpolation method, the amount of DNA in the "unknown" sample is calculated from the number of PCR cycles required for it to cross the threshold compared to the number of cycles required for each of the positive controls to cross the threshold. The advantage of this PCR quantification method is that it allows very small amounts of DNA to be accurately measured.

Of relevance to this case, the police forensic technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative PCR equipment was not functioning properly, used a much less adequate method to determine the amount of DNA in some samples, including the sample from the kitchen knife blade, the alleged murder weapon. She used a direct fluorescence method (Qubit fluorometer) which was unable to measure very small amounts of DNA. The amount of alleged DNA she reported on the knife blade registered as "too low" to measure - meaning there may have been no DNA present in the sample - but she proceeded to conduct one DNA profile test on the remaining knife blade sample.

The amount of DNA in the knife blade sample was about the same as that in one of the non-template (no DNA) controls that Stefanoni disclosed - without any comment - in her quantification report. The disclosure may perhaps have been inadvertent, because quantification results for many of the non-template controls were not reported ("suppressed"), although all such forensic data should be reported based upon ECHR case law.


Thanks. But that's a little bit like me explaining to my Golden Retriever how my car works. It does make some sense ..................I think.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:25 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.


The terminology does seem odd now that you point to it.

I'll attempt to explain some of the terminology in your quoted sentence. I would welcome Chris or TomZ or others who may wish to correct my anticipated errors.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a chemical method to get a tiny bit of DNA to double itself many times until there is a large enough amount available to conduct a reliable DNA profile test. To conduct a reliable DNA profile test, the DNA to be tested must be present in the right amount - not too little, nor too much. Therefore, when a forensic worker needs to test an "unknown" DNA sample which has been extracted from some biological trace - a cheek swab or a blood stain swab, for example - there needs to be a measurement of the amount of DNA dissolved in the extraction fluid. This is done by taking a fractional part of known volume from the extraction fluid containing the whole "unknown" DNA sample obtained from a trace. By measuring the amount of DNA in the fractional part, the amount of DNA in the whole sample can be calculated. Then, using appropriate dilutions (or concentrations) the volume of the whole sample remaining can be adjusted to be within the proper range to provide samples for reliable DNA profile testing.

"Non-template" means that no DNA was added to the control sample; the control sample only consists of the liquid solutions (reagents) used in the PCR method. Fluorescent dyes are included in the reagents; these dyes give off more fluorescence when there is more DNA present. This kind of control is useful in checking for any DNA contamination that may have been introduced (inadvertently) into the DNA profile and DNA quantification test samples.

The quantification run uses the PCR method on a set of "positive" samples with a known amount of DNA (generally supplied by the lab equipment manufacturer) added to each sample, and another sample that contains a fractional part of the "unknown" DNA sample to be tested. This fractional part is a known fractional volume of the larger volume of solution containing all the "unknown" DNA obtained from one specimen, such as a cheek swab or a blood stain swab.

The positive control samples, a non-template control sample, and the "unknown" sample, all containing PCR reagents, are then repeatedly subjected to the PCR method, until for each sample containing DNA, the amount of DNA in that sample crosses a predetermined threshold level based upon fluorescence. The non-template (no DNA) control should go to the limit of cycling (usually set at 50 cycles) without its fluorescence crossing the threshold. Using a mathematical interpolation method, the amount of DNA in the "unknown" sample is calculated from the number of PCR cycles required for it to cross the threshold compared to the number of cycles required for each of the positive controls to cross the threshold. The advantage of this PCR quantification method is that it allows very small amounts of DNA to be accurately measured.

Of relevance to this case, the police forensic technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative PCR equipment was not functioning properly, used a much less adequate method to determine the amount of DNA in some samples, including the sample from the kitchen knife blade, the alleged murder weapon. She used a direct fluorescence method (Qubit fluorometer) which was unable to measure very small amounts of DNA. The amount of alleged DNA she reported on the knife blade registered as "too low" to measure - meaning there may have been no DNA present in the sample - but she proceeded to conduct one DNA profile test on the remaining knife blade sample.

The amount of DNA in the knife blade sample was about the same as that in one of the non-template (no DNA) controls that Stefanoni disclosed - without any comment - in her quantification report. The disclosure may perhaps have been inadvertent, because quantification results for many of the non-template controls were not reported ("suppressed"), although all such forensic data should be reported based upon ECHR case law.


Thanks. But that's a little bit like me explaining to my Golden Retriever how my car works. It does make some sense ..................I think.


Methods such as DNA profiling tests can seem complicated (because they are), so depending on the depth or extent of information one wants, consulting the literature can be useful. One problem may be that the literature for specialists may start at too technical a level for beginners. The articles on DNA profiling and related methods in Wikipedia may be at a suitable level for many readers, and they have links that may be helpful.

For example, quantitative PCR (q-PCR) also called real-time PCR is covered in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time ... n_reaction

DNA profiling, including historical information on its development and changing methodology, is covered in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling

For lawyers interested in a beginning overview of DNA profiling for forensics, there is an introductory article by Dan Krane and his associates, as well as other articles, that may be especially useful, that may be accessed at the Bioforensics site:

Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence:
Essential Elements of a Competent Defense Review: Part 1
William C. Thompson, Simon Ford, Travis Doom, Michael Raymer and Dan Krane

http://www.bioforensics.com/download-articles/

Useful information may also be found on the sites of equipment vendors, for example, for real-time (quantitative) PCR:

http://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/applicatio ... pcr-qpcr#1
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:23 am

Numbers,

Your summary looks fine. I will attempt to attach a screenshot of some data from Stefanoni's laboratory. When one quantifies the amount of DNA, the number to look for is the value of Ct, which is the number of PCR cycles to achieve a certain concentration. The smaller the value of Ct, fewer the number of PCR cycles and the greater the amount of DNA in the sample. In the attached screenshot NTC is no-template control. For experiments B10 and B12 Ct is 50. In other words 50 cycles of PCR were run, and no DNA was observed. This is the expected result because there is no DNA to serve as the template for rounds of DNA replication. However, for run B11 Ct is 34, meaning that it took 34 PCR cycles to attain a threshold amount of DNA. This is one instance of contamination, although arguably not a particularly critical one. Yet it shows that Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in seven years is not true.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:26 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Numbers,

Your summary looks fine. I will attempt to attach a screenshot of some data from Stefanoni's laboratory. When one quantifies the amount of DNA, the number to look for is the value of Ct, which is the number of PCR cycles to achieve a certain concentration. The smaller the value of Ct, fewer the number of PCR cycles and the greater the amount of DNA in the sample. In the attached screenshot NTC is no-template control. For experiments B10 and B12 Ct is 50. In other words 50 cycles of PCR were run, and no DNA was observed. This is the expected result because there is no DNA to serve as the template for rounds of DNA replication. However, for run B11 Ct is 34, meaning that it took 34 PCR cycles to attain a threshold amount of DNA. This is one instance of contamination, although arguably not a particularly critical one. Yet it shows that Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in seven years is not true.


Chris, thanks for linking to that data. Interested readers should look at the following link for more information on the contamination:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamina ... k-coverup/

For any who wish to see a graph showing a typical fluorescence curve as obtained during qPCR (real-time PCR), with the threshold and Ct labelled, see this site:

http://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/applicatio ... e-pcr-qpcr

(Note that in the graph, "Ct" is labelled "Cq".)

This link may also be of interest (it uses the "Ct" notation), although there may be more information than many beginners would want:

sabiosciences.com/manuals/IntrotoqPCR.pdf

This youtube video may be a more concise and specific introdution to qPCR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQOnX1-SUrI
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Annella » Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:17 pm

Certain people are having a VERY hard time understanding that an acquittal = exoneration. So for those still struggling ( you know who you are)....

ac·quit·tal
əˈkwid(ə)l/
noun
a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.
"the trial resulted in an acquittal"
synonyms: clearing, exoneration, absolution; More


Oh...and...

ex·on·er·ate
iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
"the court-martial exonerated me"
synonyms: absolve, clear, acquit, find innocent, discharge; formalexculpate
"the inquiry exonerated them"
2.
release someone from (a duty or obligation).
synonyms: release, discharge, free, liberate; More
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:56 pm

Annella wrote:Certain people are having a VERY hard time understanding that an acquittal = exoneration. So for those still struggling ( you know who you are)....

ac·quit·tal
əˈkwid(ə)l/
noun
a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.
"the trial resulted in an acquittal"
synonyms: clearing, exoneration, absolution; More


Oh...and...

ex·on·er·ate
iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
"the court-martial exonerated me"
synonyms: absolve, clear, acquit, find innocent, discharge; formalexculpate
"the inquiry exonerated them"
2.
release someone from (a duty or obligation).
synonyms: release, discharge, free, liberate; More


Yes, there are still 3 or 4 people on earth who just can't quite understand why Amanda is attending events like the Innocence Conference. Those people are idiots. For the rest of the world, Amanda is rightfully viewed as an exoneree.
"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: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby MichaelB » Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:47 pm

Hi Bruce, Sarah, everyone....

Is anyone still following the shenanigans of that loathsome criminal fraudster Naseer Ahmad, aka 'Ergon' :::WeatherWhisperer::: who seized control of the .nut hate site from Michael?

I just had a quick read of that tragic cesspool he operates and.....he's still at it. The vile vile man is still posting daily about Amanda Knox even though it's been 2 years since the acquittal! It's just unbelievable really. It appears he still has a readership of about 4 including lonely man, Hugo. He also fancies himself as leading a 'research project' about the case. :jaw-dropping:

It was nice to see Amanda was recently in Canada giving a talk but I was a little concerned he might stalk her like he stalked Frank or attempt one of his attention seeking stunts. Hopefully the police were tipped off about him.

One more thing. Someone recently posted on Facebook an 'article' (more like a eulogy) by the quack Liz Houle and I gotta say she is so damn creepy. She is like an obsessed fan the way she writes about the victim, a dead girl she didn't know and had absolutely nothing to do with. This Liz Houle woman appears to spend every waking moment tweeting and writing about AK and making YouTube videos about her. She's literally made dozens of them. Obsessed much? Where are these peoples families? Do they know what they get up to online?

The other one who's :batshit crazy:: is Cristina Giscombe. They're really two of a kind.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

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

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:24 pm

I live in Virginia so it does not personally matter to me but I am curious if she might be going to the March for Science in Seattle?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

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

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:06 am

MichaelB wrote:Hi Bruce, Sarah, everyone....

Is anyone still following the shenanigans of that loathsome criminal fraudster Naseer Ahmad, aka 'Ergon' :::WeatherWhisperer::: who seized control of the .nut hate site from Michael?

I just had a quick read of that tragic cesspool he operates and.....he's still at it. The vile vile man is still posting daily about Amanda Knox even though it's been 2 years since the acquittal! It's just unbelievable really. It appears he still has a readership of about 4 including lonely man, Hugo. He also fancies himself as leading a 'research project' about the case. :jaw-dropping:

...................

The other one who's :batshit crazy:: is Cristina Giscombe. They're really two of a kind.

I've crunched some numbers in relation to part of the on-line "wars" to do with this case. There was a time when between social media and The Daily Mail, the most lurid claims of the Perugian police/courts attracted that unique term, "gone viral".

As far as JREF/ISF is concerned (because the statistics are so readily harvestable) - believe it or not - the highest numbers of "posts-per-day" as well as "page views" were recorded in the month after the March 2015 exonerations. That was a surprise. What with all the on-line battles between innocentisti and guilters in the 5 years previous to that, the peak of posting and viewing was April 2015.

At that point, guilters had pretty much abandoned the field - one of the major guilt websites even retreated behind a registration-wall. From April 2015 (at JREF at least - one of the few places which both "sides" could interact) it was mainly us innocentisti talking to ourselves - even attracting new folks like Mike1171 or Kauffer who were even more stridently innocence than the rest of it! (Some were certainly more articulate!) But even that was a wee bit of an echo-chamber of innocence - with the possible exception of Vixen who has averaged about 11 posts per day since joining in April 2015. (Perhaps she's had to post that frequently given that she's pretty much alone in her views there....)

Now to the point - what can be gleaned from those stats is not just that since April 2015:
  • frequency of posting as dropped 87%
  • frequency of viewing the thread has dropped 87%
But that the rate of "lurking" has almost disappeared. There was a day when the "views" of the thread were high, out-matching the rate of postings; the "views" associated with active posters who were reading others' posts to prepare responses could not account for the total viewership, which in April 2015 maxed out at between 4,700 to 5,300 views per day. (Right now, the JREF/ISF thread gets about 630 views a day, a large portion of which - if not all - is perhaps the posters themselves, reading others posts and, of course, a post itself counts as at least one "view" depending on how many time the person reloads the page.)

Ok, **now** to the point - it's only us who bothers with the likes of Ergon or KrissyG. I'm not against observing how those folks are doing these days - I can occasionally get up a dander myself. (Like perhaps right now, where it took me having some down-time at home to even bother posting this! But who is even going to read this, other than the usual suspects) point being, no lurker is going to read this and have some giant "aha!" moment one way or the other.

Amanda Knox coming to Canada (twice in 5 months) has not made **any** news service in Canada. This despite guilter-bleatings that Knox had been in the country illegally, or that CBSA had somehow been paid off, or Vixen's, "U of Windsor probably escorted anyone from the event for even mentioning Lumumba, or at least docked them marks for mentioning him."

Nothing says "this is all over" than that none of this rates a mention anywhere other than in the usual places. None of this "goes viral" any more.

So to answer the question, "Is anyone still following the shenanigans of that loathsome criminal fraudster Naseer Ahmad, aka 'Ergon'?" it's probably just us, and there are a lot fewer "us" than 2 or 6 years ago.
    “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: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:56 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
MichaelB wrote:Hi Bruce, Sarah, everyone....

Is anyone still following the shenanigans of that loathsome criminal fraudster Naseer Ahmad, aka 'Ergon' :::WeatherWhisperer::: who seized control of the .nut hate site from Michael?

I just had a quick read of that tragic cesspool he operates and.....he's still at it. The vile vile man is still posting daily about Amanda Knox even though it's been 2 years since the acquittal! It's just unbelievable really. It appears he still has a readership of about 4 including lonely man, Hugo. He also fancies himself as leading a 'research project' about the case. :jaw-dropping:

...................

The other one who's :batshit crazy:: is Cristina Giscombe. They're really two of a kind.

I've crunched some numbers in relation to part of the on-line "wars" to do with this case. There was a time when between social media and The Daily Mail, the most lurid claims of the Perugian police/courts attracted that unique term, "gone viral".

As far as JREF/ISF is concerned (because the statistics are so readily harvestable) - believe it or not - the highest numbers of "posts-per-day" as well as "page views" were recorded in the month after the March 2015 exonerations. That was a surprise. What with all the on-line battles between innocentisti and guilters in the 5 years previous to that, the peak of posting and viewing was April 2015.

At that point, guilters had pretty much abandoned the field - one of the major guilt websites even retreated behind a registration-wall. From April 2015 (at JREF at least - one of the few places which both "sides" could interact) it was mainly us innocentisti talking to ourselves - even attracting new folks like Mike1171 or Kauffer who were even more stridently innocence than the rest of it! (Some were certainly more articulate!) But even that was a wee bit of an echo-chamber of innocence - with the possible exception of Vixen who has averaged about 11 posts per day since joining in April 2015. (Perhaps she's had to post that frequently given that she's pretty much alone in her views there....)

Now to the point - what can be gleaned from those stats is not just that since April 2015:
  • frequency of posting as dropped 87%
  • frequency of viewing the thread has dropped 87%
But that the rate of "lurking" has almost disappeared. There was a day when the "views" of the thread were high, out-matching the rate of postings; the "views" associated with active posters who were reading others' posts to prepare responses could not account for the total viewership, which in April 2015 maxed out at between 4,700 to 5,300 views per day. (Right now, the JREF/ISF thread gets about 630 views a day, a large portion of which - if not all - is perhaps the posters themselves, reading others posts and, of course, a post itself counts as at least one "view" depending on how many time the person reloads the page.)

Ok, **now** to the point - it's only us who bothers with the likes of Ergon or KrissyG. I'm not against observing how those folks are doing these days - I can occasionally get up a dander myself. (Like perhaps right now, where it took me having some down-time at home to even bother posting this! But who is even going to read this, other than the usual suspects) point being, no lurker is going to read this and have some giant "aha!" moment one way or the other.

Amanda Knox coming to Canada (twice in 5 months) has not made **any** news service in Canada. This despite guilter-bleatings that Knox had been in the country illegally, or that CBSA had somehow been paid off, or Vixen's, "U of Windsor probably escorted anyone from the event for even mentioning Lumumba, or at least docked them marks for mentioning him."

Nothing says "this is all over" than that none of this rates a mention anywhere other than in the usual places. None of this "goes viral" any more.

So to answer the question, "Is anyone still following the shenanigans of that loathsome criminal fraudster Naseer Ahmad, aka 'Ergon'?" it's probably just us, and there are a lot fewer "us" than 2 or 6 years ago.


Bill, I hate to admit it, but many of those 630 page visits are mine. I make a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes - for example, typing "there" for "their" and vice versa, and I edit to add (wonderful) afterthoughts. So there may be only about 5 or 6 separate individuals reading the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito thread on ISF. :)
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:23 pm

Numbers wrote:Bill, I hate to admit it, but many of those 630 page visits are mine. I make a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes - for example, typing "there" for "their" and vice versa, and I edit to add (wonderful) afterthoughts. So there may be only about 5 or 6 separate individuals reading the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito thread on ISF. :)

Once I was accused of making 20 posts in one day. I balked at the accusation - then I went back and checked - indeed, on that day I had made 20 posts.

And it is as you say; any post I had made also had spelling mistakes; or worse - on a read-through I discovered I'd missed a completely salient way of putting it. So on that day of 20 posts, it is easy to consider that I caused perhaps 100 "refreshes" of the page just by my little old lonesome.

Which is a long way of saying.....

At it's height, in April 2015, there were 43 "views" of the thread per post. Those views would also include the times the poster him/herself had refreshed the page for exactly the reasons you express.

So how many of those 43 views were some lurker who was just seeking info, and had found JREF's threads on this subject through Google? That is unknownable, except to say this:

Continuations 19 and 20 had each about 19 "views" per post. Assuming that posters themselves refreshed the page as frequently as ever, acc. to your own observation about your own posting style, then that means that 24 "views per post" simply disappeared, and I assume that those can only be lurkers - meaning people no longer reading the thread to try to decide things for themselves. It's a rough measure of whether or not the case itself is still in the public eye.

It's not. Continuations 23 and 24 have fluctuated between 21 and 25 "views" per post. When the NetFlix documentary came out, the "views" per post briefly went from 19 to 30, then gradually subsided.

It would seem useful to any site-owner to know this data; it speaks to whether or not the site-owner is simply running an echo-chamber. I'm as bad as anyone, but it seems that JREF/ISF right now is simply an echochamber with Vixen generating the noise!

ETA - I just gave IA 4 refreshes of this thread, simply by correcting mistakes, as well as adding this "ETA"!
    “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: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:35 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:Bill, I hate to admit it, but many of those 630 page visits are mine. I make a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes - for example, typing "there" for "their" and vice versa, and I edit to add (wonderful) afterthoughts. So there may be only about 5 or 6 separate individuals reading the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito thread on ISF. :)

Once I was accused of making 20 posts in one day. I balked at the accusation - then I went back and checked - indeed, on that day I had made 20 posts.

And it is as you say; any post I had made also had spelling mistakes; or worse - on a read-through I discovered I'd missed a completely salient way of putting it. So on that day of 20 posts, it is easy to consider that I caused perhaps 100 "refreshes" of the page just by my little old lonesome.

Which is a long way of saying.....

At it's height, in April 2015, there were 43 "views" of the thread per post. Those views would also include the times the poster him/herself had refreshed the page for exactly the reasons you express.

So how many of those 43 views were some lurker who was just seeking info, and had found JREF's threads on this subject through Google? That is unknownable, except to say this:

Continuations 19 and 20 had each about 19 "views" per post. Assuming that posters themselves refreshed the page as frequently as ever, acc. to your own observation about your own posting style, then that means that 24 "views per post" simply disappeared, and I assume that those can only be lurkers - meaning people no longer reading the thread to try to decide things for themselves. It's a rough measure of whether or not the case itself is still in the public eye.

It's not. Continuations 23 and 24 have fluctuated between 21 and 25 "views" per post. When the NetFlix documentary came out, the "views" per post briefly went from 19 to 30, then gradually subsided.

It would seem useful to any site-owner to know this data; it speaks to whether or not the site-owner is simply running an echo-chamber. I'm as bad as anyone, but it seems that JREF/ISF right now is simply an echochamber with Vixen generating the noise!

ETA - I just gave IA 4 refreshes of this thread, simply by correcting mistakes, as well as adding this "ETA"!


Indeed, Vixen is the star of the current ISF thread on the Knox - Sollecito case. Since there is rarely any news, her provocative posts and the responses to them form the daily substance of the thread. This may change when the ECHR publishes a judgment on Amanda's case against Italy, but there's no date certain for that event.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Apr 02, 2017 2:37 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote: Yes, there are still 3 or 4 people on earth who just can't quite understand why Amanda is attending events like the Innocence Conference. Those people are idiots. For the rest of the world, Amanda is rightfully viewed as an exoneree.


To Bruce

Yes Bruce they are idiots and mostly they are hurt people of not knowing criminal law, even they only support the guilty party. I support the innocent and I defend anyone who is truly wrongful convicted of murder. I do care and I can care less even I support Kirstin Lobato & Dusty Turner and if they don't like it. That there problem because I believe those 2 or more to be innocent and I take it for granted either way and I will not stop. There is way and always a way for him or her to be set free and I will accept it for them getting there freedom. I salute you Dusty Turner & Kirstin Lobato!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:38 pm

Numbers wrote:Indeed, Vixen is the star of the current ISF thread on the Knox - Sollecito case. Since there is rarely any news, her provocative posts and the responses to them form the daily substance of the thread. This may change when the ECHR publishes a judgment on Amanda's case against Italy, but there's no date certain for that event.


Why do you think I stopped posting there :razz:
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

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

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:28 am

MichaelB wrote:Hi Bruce, Sarah, everyone....

Is anyone still following the shenanigans of that loathsome criminal fraudster Naseer Ahmad, aka 'Ergon' :::WeatherWhisperer::: who seized control of the .nut hate site from Michael?

I just had a quick read of that tragic cesspool he operates and.....he's still at it. The vile vile man is still posting daily about Amanda Knox even though it's been 2 years since the acquittal! It's just unbelievable really. It appears he still has a readership of about 4 including lonely man, Hugo. He also fancies himself as leading a 'research project' about the case. :jaw-dropping:

It was nice to see Amanda was recently in Canada giving a talk but I was a little concerned he might stalk her like he stalked Frank or attempt one of his attention seeking stunts. Hopefully the police were tipped off about him.

One more thing. Someone recently posted on Facebook an 'article' (more like a eulogy) by the quack Liz Houle and I gotta say she is so damn creepy. She is like an obsessed fan the way she writes about the victim, a dead girl she didn't know and had absolutely nothing to do with. This Liz Houle woman appears to spend every waking moment tweeting and writing about AK and making YouTube videos about her. She's literally made dozens of them. Obsessed much? Where are these peoples families? Do they know what they get up to online?

The other one who's :batshit crazy:: is Cristina Giscombe. They're really two of a kind.


Ergon is a sick man. The truth about that fraud has now been exposed. Thankfully, his efforts to hurt people are no longer working. His snake oil "I will cure your child's autism if you give me a lot of money" clinic is closed. His manfromatlan site, where he attempts to lure in the weak by convincing them he is God, gets absolutely no traffic. He's washed up.

That is all good news. Ergon has been one of the most disturbing people on the pro-guilt side. He preys on the weak. He's pure scum. Of course he craves attention, so he will be happy to see his name mentioned here regardless of the negative message. That's why I rarely discuss the guilters anymore. They no longer have any relevance. I will say that observing their behavior is fascinating at this point. It's sad to see people behaving so oddly.
"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: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby carlofab » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:56 pm

Thank you, Bruce and Michael, for these comments.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

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

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:04 pm

carlofab wrote:Thank you, Bruce and Michael, for these comments.


Hi Carlo

It sure is been a long time for you to return and welcome back my friend. But anyway, I was thinking that maybe someone can help me, even I am still keeping the faith alive for Kirstin Lobato and this new case called: Dusty Turner, even Dusty case is a he mess even he has a family member with support and it need a lot of help. I already watched this documentary on Amazon.com and it very clear that this man is innocent. So I already create a thread case for his innocent and it look like no one want to help. I am ok, even I am not quitting this case at all. Dusty will be set free and it shows crystal clear that this man is truly innocent, even I believe so!!!

Second, I am trying to look through a case of these state, of nation and I am trying to explain which state I am thinking and anyway here is the 50 state, and I am only going to pick 3 state of the Innocent 3 of who I think and it is going to be Kirstin Lobato with Dusty Turner and who is number 3 or 2 or 1. So I am going into A-Z last name of reason and here is my list of state which case will be next into a murder case, and the state will be: AR, LA, MS, OK & TX

Image

Which state is it? I need a case for number 3 or 2 or 1 and that all and goodnight Carlo!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:26 am

Here are some numbers from the ECHR:

There were 87,850 applications pending before an ECHR judicial formation as of 28 February 2017.

Of the above total, 5850 applications against Italy were pending.

Of the 5850 pending applications against Italy, about 1290 were pending before a 7-judge chamber, the entry-level judging formation for significant cases, as of 01 January 2017.

Of the approximately 1290 applications pending before a chamber, 11 cases (applications) have been specifically identified as "noteworthy pending cases" with the name of the applicant, the application number, and a brief summary. These noteworthy pending cases have all been communicated to Italy and thus have passed preliminary review for admissibility by the ECHR. One such case is Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy 76577/13.

There is no certain date given for the judgment of Knox v. Italy, but its identification as a "noteworthy pending case" shows that the ECHR believes it is important from the viewpoint of human rights and anticipates producing a judgment in due course.

Here again is the summary of the complaint in Knox v. Italy from the ECHR Profile for Italy, updated March 2017.

"Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Sources:


http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
Link to PDF Pending cases 2017

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=p ... tsheets&c=
Link to Country Profile - Italy (PDF)
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:22 pm

Speaking of pro-guilt posters, Vixen on ISF has used the term "innocence fraud", which Vixen apparently defines as anyone who is charged with a crime or has been convicted of a crime but "pretends" to be innocent, for example, by pleading "not guilty" rather than confessing guilt immediately or by seeking post-conviction relief (appealing the conviction).

Thinking about that term "innocence fraud", and observing a relatively small number of pro-guilt posts, I've coined the term "guilt fraud".

"Guilt fraud" is a campaign of attempted deceptions that seeks to show an innocent person is guilty of a crime by means of allegations that are falsehoods or fabrications. It's not criminal fraud, of course, because it doesn't satisfy the legal definition (elements) of criminal fraud; there is no legal injury, such as financial loss. And, of course, essentially only a few find the pro-guilt falsehoods and fabrications credible and thus there is no reliance upon them. An important contribution to this is that these falsehoods and fabrications are almost always transparent and absurd. However, while some may consider "guilt fraud" to be immoral or unethical, others (some of whom may be called trolls) may find it simply an entertaining diversion.

Here's the legal definition of fraud generally used in the US:

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud {in the legal sense} is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features. ....

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:06 am

Numbers wrote:Speaking of pro-guilt posters, Vixen on ISF has used the term "innocence fraud", which Vixen apparently defines as anyone who is charged with a crime or has been convicted of a crime but "pretends" to be innocent, for example, by pleading "not guilty" rather than confessing guilt immediately or by seeking post-conviction relief (appealing the conviction).

Thinking about that term "innocence fraud", and observing a relatively small number of pro-guilt posts, I've coined the term "guilt fraud".

"Guilt fraud" is a campaign of attempted deceptions that seeks to show an innocent person is guilty of a crime by means of allegations that are falsehoods or fabrications. It's not criminal fraud, of course, because it doesn't satisfy the legal definition (elements) of criminal fraud; there is no legal injury, such as financial loss. And, of course, essentially only a few find the pro-guilt falsehoods and fabrications credible and thus there is no reliance upon them. An important contribution to this is that these falsehoods and fabrications are almost always transparent and absurd. However, while some may consider "guilt fraud" to be immoral or unethical, others (some of whom may be called trolls) may find it simply an entertaining diversion.

Here's the legal definition of fraud generally used in the US:

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud {in the legal sense} is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features. ....

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud



Fraud generally involves a misrepresentation that the party making the representation knows is false. I think many guilters really believe that whoever they are trashing is actually guilty. But that raises a concept related to fraud - that concept is called "negligent misrepresentation" which is actionable in most jurisdictions. It involves making a false representation which one may believe to be true but with respect to which one has not exercised due care to determine whether the representation is actually true. That's a great deal of what goes on on guilty blogs and websites.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:58 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Numbers wrote:Speaking of pro-guilt posters, Vixen on ISF has used the term "innocence fraud", which Vixen apparently defines as anyone who is charged with a crime or has been convicted of a crime but "pretends" to be innocent, for example, by pleading "not guilty" rather than confessing guilt immediately or by seeking post-conviction relief (appealing the conviction).

Thinking about that term "innocence fraud", and observing a relatively small number of pro-guilt posts, I've coined the term "guilt fraud".

"Guilt fraud" is a campaign of attempted deceptions that seeks to show an innocent person is guilty of a crime by means of allegations that are falsehoods or fabrications. It's not criminal fraud, of course, because it doesn't satisfy the legal definition (elements) of criminal fraud; there is no legal injury, such as financial loss. And, of course, essentially only a few find the pro-guilt falsehoods and fabrications credible and thus there is no reliance upon them. An important contribution to this is that these falsehoods and fabrications are almost always transparent and absurd. However, while some may consider "guilt fraud" to be immoral or unethical, others (some of whom may be called trolls) may find it simply an entertaining diversion.

Here's the legal definition of fraud generally used in the US:

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud {in the legal sense} is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features. ....

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud



Fraud generally involves a misrepresentation that the party making the representation knows is false. I think many guilters really believe that whoever they are trashing is actually guilty. But that raises a concept related to fraud - that concept is called "negligent misrepresentation" which is actionable in most jurisdictions. It involves making a false representation which one may believe to be true but with respect to which one has not exercised due care to determine whether the representation is actually true. That's a great deal of what goes on on guilty blogs and websites.


The concept of "negligent misrepresentation" is an interesting one. Here's some information on the elements in the case of a transaction involving a contract or transfer of property:

What Constitutes Negligent Misrepresentation?

The essential elements of a claim of negligent misrepresentation are:

Someone made a false representation as to a past or existing fact. Statements about the future do not count, nor do opinions or typical "car-salesman" type phrases ("This is a great car," "This is a real deal," and the like).
The person making the belief must have no reasonable ground for believing it to be true. So in the real estate broker example, if the broker had lived in the house for 10 years, and always found it to be quiet in the past, then her misrepresentation would not have been negligent (in that case it would have been an innocent misrepresentation).
The representation must have been made with the intent to induce the other party to rely upon it. Basically, you had to be using your misrepresentation in order to help you make the deal.
The other party must have believed the misrepresentation and reasonably relied on it. Most courts are hesitant to protect a buyer if he is unreasonable in relying on whatever the seller told him (for example, in trying to sell him a car, the seller assured him it could go "a million miles an hour," and the buyer believes this). The buyer must also rely partly (or in many courts, wholly), on the misrepresentation in deciding to go ahead with the transaction.
As a result of the reliance on the misrepresentation, the other party suffered damages. This means the buyer must be actually harmed by the final transaction, otherwise there is no liability.

There is an important distinction to be made here, however. The more serious variety of misrepresentation (fraudulent misrepresentation, or fraud), has nearly identical elements, so the line between the two is very fine. The only difference is that fraudulent misrepresentation requires “reckless disregard” as to the truth of something”, while negligent disregard only requires “no reasonable ground” to assume something is true. It is essentially a matter of degree.

- Source: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... imqe2.dpuf
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Sara Sharma » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:51 pm

I just got yellow carded on ISF for this post. The justification was 'derailing'.
"Following a recent post I visited another web site with posts about this crime.

I found;
The study was published by Elsevier-Science Direct
Computers in Human Behavior
Volume 71, June 2017, Pages 70–78
Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann
John Synnott, Andria Coulias , Maria Ioannou

Highlights:

• Case study analysis of Anti-McCann internet Trolling Group.
• The role of language, group identity and in group cohesion is examined.
• Language is central to Anti-McCann group in the construction of identity.
• Several strategies were employed by Anti-McCanns to provoke outsiders.
• Support for previous research linking trolling to western media culture and ASPD.

Abstract:

Despite the sustained media attention surrounding internet trolling, academic studies investigating its occurrence are rare. This study aimed to provide a case study analysis of the behaviours and strategies of a group of alleged Twitter trolls referred to as the anti-McCanns due to their continual abuse of Kate and Gerry McCann as well as those who support them and thus identify as pro-McCann. The way in which language was used to construct the anti-McCanns group identity, enhance in-group cohesion and facilitate out-group disassociation from the pro-Mccann group was additionally explored, given that previous research has implicated group processes in the propagation of aggressive online conduct. A multi-method approach involving a combination of ethnographic observations and the collection of online commentary was employed. The data was then analysed using quantitative content analysis and discourse analysis, which indicated that language was utilised in a variety of ways by the anti-McCanns to construct a salient group identity and negatively stereotype and disassociate from the pro-McCann group. Findings additionally revealed that several strategies were employed by the anti-McCann trolls to provoke and derogate members of the pro-McCann group, supporting previous findings which have linked trolling to both western media culture and the characteristics of anti-social personality disorder. The implications of these findings both theoretical and practical are discussed, alongside recommendations for future research.

Now what I found interesting was that the poster (someone posting as Ergon) recognised that the psychopathology identified in this paper was also applicable to those who trolled Knox insisting on her guilt. But the response was to claim that the science was wrong rather than recognising that those who exhibited the behaviour identified in a research paper by professional psychologists as pathological were perhaps in need of help.

Vixen your behaviour seems to match that described in the research paper. Do you think that you are right and the professional psychologists in a peer reviewed paper are wrong?"

Now I think a scientific paper about trolling behaviour of 'guilters' in the McCann case when it is recognised by a Knox 'guilter' as being a parallel that can be applied to him or her is interesting. Especially when the response is to deny the science. The anti-science response is exactly what a skeptic site should be addressing.

What do others think?
User avatar
Sara Sharma
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:06 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:05 pm

Sara Sharma wrote:I just got yellow carded on ISF for this post. The justification was 'derailing'.
"Following a recent post I visited another web site with posts about this crime.

I found;
The study was published by Elsevier-Science Direct
Computers in Human Behavior
Volume 71, June 2017, Pages 70–78
Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann
John Synnott, Andria Coulias , Maria Ioannou

Highlights:

• Case study analysis of Anti-McCann internet Trolling Group.
• The role of language, group identity and in group cohesion is examined.
• Language is central to Anti-McCann group in the construction of identity.
• Several strategies were employed by Anti-McCanns to provoke outsiders.
• Support for previous research linking trolling to western media culture and ASPD.

Abstract:

Despite the sustained media attention surrounding internet trolling, academic studies investigating its occurrence are rare. This study aimed to provide a case study analysis of the behaviours and strategies of a group of alleged Twitter trolls referred to as the anti-McCanns due to their continual abuse of Kate and Gerry McCann as well as those who support them and thus identify as pro-McCann. The way in which language was used to construct the anti-McCanns group identity, enhance in-group cohesion and facilitate out-group disassociation from the pro-Mccann group was additionally explored, given that previous research has implicated group processes in the propagation of aggressive online conduct. A multi-method approach involving a combination of ethnographic observations and the collection of online commentary was employed. The data was then analysed using quantitative content analysis and discourse analysis, which indicated that language was utilised in a variety of ways by the anti-McCanns to construct a salient group identity and negatively stereotype and disassociate from the pro-McCann group. Findings additionally revealed that several strategies were employed by the anti-McCann trolls to provoke and derogate members of the pro-McCann group, supporting previous findings which have linked trolling to both western media culture and the characteristics of anti-social personality disorder. The implications of these findings both theoretical and practical are discussed, alongside recommendations for future research.

Now what I found interesting was that the poster (someone posting as Ergon) recognised that the psychopathology identified in this paper was also applicable to those who trolled Knox insisting on her guilt. But the response was to claim that the science was wrong rather than recognising that those who exhibited the behaviour identified in a research paper by professional psychologists as pathological were perhaps in need of help.

Vixen your behaviour seems to match that described in the research paper. Do you think that you are right and the professional psychologists in a peer reviewed paper are wrong?"

Now I think a scientific paper about trolling behaviour of 'guilters' in the McCann case when it is recognised by a Knox 'guilter' as being a parallel that can be applied to him or her is interesting. Especially when the response is to deny the science. The anti-science response is exactly what a skeptic site should be addressing.

What do others think?


I think that the study makes interesting and valid points.

But the discussion topic of the study - the behavior or psychology of trolls - apparently was considered off-topic by the moderators of the Trials of Knox and Sollecito thread on ISF.

Perhaps a new thread could be started on ISF to discuss the behavior or psychology of trolls, or perhaps that should be done elsewhere. Trolls are active against other innocent persons in addition to Knox and Sollecito, and trolls have even harassed the parents of the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre victims.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:19 pm

On ISF you're never allowed to even hint that the other person could be anything but 100% genuine and reasonable. Vixen just coasts right on the edge of the rules every day. I stopped posting there until the ECHR decision when there may be something worth discussing (for the last time with this case).
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby LondonJohn » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:50 pm

Zrausch wrote:On ISF you're never allowed to even hint that the other person could be anything but 100% genuine and reasonable. Vixen just coasts right on the edge of the rules every day. I stopped posting there until the ECHR decision when there may be something worth discussing (for the last time with this case).



A week or so ago, I took the (not lightly taken) decision to, shall we say, "switch off" the river of bullshit, agitation and jaw-dropping (and wildly ironic) attempts at intellectual oneupmanship from our not-so-foxy associate. I say "not lightly taken" because I am philosophically opposed to the general concept of blocking out any contribution to a particular debate - regardless of how much I agree or disagree with the position of that contribution (and I've never taken this step before at any time). After a lot of consideration, however, I now hold that special circumstances apply in this particular situation, owing to issues such as extreme and continual intellectual (dis)honesty, extreme and continual arrogant idiocy, and what I perceive as the exposition of personal *issues* (not least the bizarre obsession with levels of education - which again are hugely ironic - and other related matters).

And, let me tell you, it makes the discussion/debate there a whole lot more well-reasoned and intellectual from my perspective (and, at the same time, a whole lot less voluminous......). I heartily recommend it.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

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

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:21 pm

carlofab wrote:Thank you, Bruce and Michael, for these comments.


Hi Carlofab. Hope all is well with you.
"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: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:26 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Numbers wrote:Speaking of pro-guilt posters, Vixen on ISF has used the term "innocence fraud", which Vixen apparently defines as anyone who is charged with a crime or has been convicted of a crime but "pretends" to be innocent, for example, by pleading "not guilty" rather than confessing guilt immediately or by seeking post-conviction relief (appealing the conviction).

Thinking about that term "innocence fraud", and observing a relatively small number of pro-guilt posts, I've coined the term "guilt fraud".

"Guilt fraud" is a campaign of attempted deceptions that seeks to show an innocent person is guilty of a crime by means of allegations that are falsehoods or fabrications. It's not criminal fraud, of course, because it doesn't satisfy the legal definition (elements) of criminal fraud; there is no legal injury, such as financial loss. And, of course, essentially only a few find the pro-guilt falsehoods and fabrications credible and thus there is no reliance upon them. An important contribution to this is that these falsehoods and fabrications are almost always transparent and absurd. However, while some may consider "guilt fraud" to be immoral or unethical, others (some of whom may be called trolls) may find it simply an entertaining diversion.

Here's the legal definition of fraud generally used in the US:

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud {in the legal sense} is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features. ....

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud



Fraud generally involves a misrepresentation that the party making the representation knows is false. I think many guilters really believe that whoever they are trashing is actually guilty. But that raises a concept related to fraud - that concept is called "negligent misrepresentation" which is actionable in most jurisdictions. It involves making a false representation which one may believe to be true but with respect to which one has not exercised due care to determine whether the representation is actually true. That's a great deal of what goes on on guilty blogs and websites.


I agree that many of the guilters did actually believe in what they were fighting for. They were just wrong. Some took it too far of course, and personally obsessed over the accused. There is a disturbing element there.

Ergon fits the description of a fraud. He knows he is not God and he knows he cannot cure autism. Yet, he duped people into believing both for a while. Thankfully he no longer has a following. But I cannot say that the word fraud fits when it comes to his guilter stance. He may very well believe in guilt. Once again, he was wrong. The term "negligent misrepresentation" sounds good.
"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: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby LondonJohn » Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:12 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:I agree that many of the guilters did actually believe in what they were fighting for. They were just wrong. Some took it too far of course, and personally obsessed over the accused. There is a disturbing element there.

Ergon fits the description of a fraud. He knows he is not God and he knows he cannot cure autism. Yet, he duped people into believing both for a while. Thankfully he no longer has a following. But I cannot say that the word fraud fits when it comes to his guilter stance. He may very well believe in guilt. Once again, he was wrong. The term "negligent misrepresentation" sounds good.



Personally, I think that with perhaps the majority of the most vocal and agitative pro-guilt commentators, there's something a good deal deeper at play. I think that many such individuals have a psychiatric issue which causes them to project themselves onto victims of violent crimes, and to then want to act as a form of "avenging angel" on behalf of those victims. I find it extremely telling that so many prominent pro-guilt commentators position themselves as some sort of "warrior" seeking "justice for Meredith" - where, of course, "justice" means that whomever they have decided killed Kercher must be punished and vilified. That's also why they continue their obsessive surveillance of, and denigration of, Knox and Sollecito even long after their definitive acquittals: they see their roles as continuing to make Knox's and Sollecito's lives as watched and uncomfortable as they possibly can, as they see that it's "the least they can do" to avenge their victim.

I know I've said this many times before, but I think a proper psychiatrist who's well-versed in these sorts of areas would be fascinated to examine most of the prominent pro-guilt commentators. I think there's something very deep lying behind their motivations.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

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

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:11 am

ScifiTom wrote:
Hi Carlo

I am trying to look through a case of these state, of nation and I am trying to explain which state I am thinking and anyway here is the 50 state, and I am only going to pick 3 state of the Innocent 3 of who I think and it is going to be Kirstin Lobato with Dusty Turner and who is number 3 or 2 or 1. So I am going into A-Z last name of reason and here is my list of state which case will be next into a murder case, and the state will be: AR, LA, KS, MS, OK & TX!!!

Image



To everyone

Am I being on the ignore button today. I need a case into a state from AR, LA, KS, MS, OK & TX. Which state is it. I need a new case of creating an innocent 3. I wanted someone to help me. I am going with my own way of my own 3 cases to free 3 people who I believe. So those are the state of murder cases AR, LA, KS, MS, OK & TX!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:36 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
erasmus44"[quote="Numbers wrote:
Speaking of pro-guilt posters, Vixen on ISF has used the term "innocence fraud", which Vixen apparently defines as anyone who is charged with a crime or has been convicted of a crime but "pretends" to be innocent, for example, by pleading "not guilty" rather than confessing guilt immediately or by seeking post-conviction relief (appealing the conviction).


Fraud generally involves a misrepresentation that the party making the representation knows is false. I think many guilters really believe that whoever they are trashing is actually guilty. But that raises a concept related to fraud - that concept is called "negligent misrepresentation" which is actionable in most jurisdictions. It involves making a false representation which one may believe to be true but with respect to which one has not exercised due care to determine whether the representation is actually true. That's a great deal of what goes on on guilty blogs and websites.


I agree that many of the guilters did actually believe in what they were fighting for. They were just wrong. Some took it too far of course, and personally obsessed over the accused. There is a disturbing element there.

Ergon fits the description of a fraud. He knows he is not God and he knows he cannot cure autism. Yet, he duped people into believing both for a while. Thankfully he no longer has a following. But I cannot say that the word fraud fits when it comes to his guilter stance. He may very well believe in guilt. Once again, he was wrong. The term "negligent misrepresentation" sounds good.


To Number, Erasmus & Bruce

First off Number I can care less of what Vixen said and the man is a total sicko of being an ugly guilter of hate even he amitted of hating Anne Hathaway and I can care less of him, even he want to support fraud or what ever the fraud crap it is! I am not a fan of fraud or cases of fraud. It not me and it just not me period!!!

I know some people support a case for it. But not me not never!!!

Hey Erasmus the guilter want to trash people of being a hater or not having much fun of hurting there self. I know it terrible and we know it that they lost a loving one person who pass away and it kills them even they believe into guilty party. I can care less of what poor Peggy Ganong, Harry Rag & Peter Quennell or any member of the TJMK can say to me. I am not and will not buy there stupid silly story aka crystal clear even that goes to Ergon too!!!

Hey Bruce I really like to focus on a case even I am sick and tired of Ergon trash of him believing into god. I will say this once and only once God came from christ not from someone who is god period. It has and always been that way. I know that I see silly signs of being saying: He god or she god or why I love that movie called: Oh God or Oh God book 2. They both are great movies even George Burns know god came from christ not from Ergon or someone who believe he is god. God is christ and that is where I stamp my foot down!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

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

Postby Sara Sharma » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:01 pm

Well I have asked the mods on ISF for clarification about whether reference to this paper is permanently banned on ISF, or whether I can post it but with restrictions on discussion. For the present i am banned from ISF. Someone who does not mind getting in trouble could try posting the abstract on the ISF Knox thread and see what happens.
User avatar
Sara Sharma
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:06 pm

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

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:19 pm

Sara Sharma wrote:Well I have asked the mods on ISF for clarification about whether reference to this paper is permanently banned on ISF, or whether I can post it but with restrictions on discussion. For the present i am banned from ISF. Someone who does not mind getting in trouble could try posting the abstract on the ISF Knox thread and see what happens.

Not worth it.

At best it is us making arm-chair diagnoses of people we only know in the context of a diminishing online war, about people we mainly know nothing about.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Postby Samson » Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:22 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Sara Sharma wrote:Well I have asked the mods on ISF for clarification about whether reference to this paper is permanently banned on ISF, or whether I can post it but with restrictions on discussion. For the present i am banned from ISF. Someone who does not mind getting in trouble could try posting the abstract on the ISF Knox thread and see what happens.

Not worth it.

At best it is us making arm-chair diagnoses of people we only know in the context of a diminishing online war, about people we mainly know nothing about.

This reminds me of my last yellow card for this post that went to AAH

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=312874

"From minute 49, a remarkable tale of redemption for two American men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubLZYCm8s8 "

I was interested in the principal of admitting being wrong, almost unheard of as we all know.

The lead in was the apparent unwillingness for the Kercher family to in any way own the damage they were sadly party to.

ISF is a promising board but ruined by the notion that drawing attention to related cases can be deemed off topic.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:14 pm

Samson wrote:ISF is a promising board but ruined by the notion that drawing attention to related cases can be deemed off topic.

It also needs to allow discussion of beefs that users might have, while not allowing jackals and trollish posts; LionKing comes to mind. Why they allow LionKing, I'll never know.

But it also needs to find a better rule than a simple ban on talking about the motives of posters. "Post about the argument, not the poster," is perhaps a rule that fits 98.6% of the time, but (here I go again when no one believes me except for one, lone mod on ISF!) when someone slow floods the place, it should be allowed to point that out.

On a related subject (now that I'm here), I was quite sincere in apologizing to both Vixen and Ergon. I'd made the same assumption that when Vixen had said that some of the Knox's had been reprimanded in court for skimpy dress and taking selfies, that she was talking about the, then, preteen Knox children. Vixen had not specifically said that - even though she is now claiming that her use of the word "skimpy" was not a sexualized comment, but a nod to warm weather.

Ergon made a rare appearance to complain about the word "hijacked", in relation to how he'd come to be the lead-admin for .net. I took a quick look here at the PMF Wars thread, thinking I knew where that was what one of the .ORG people themselves had said, but could not find it. So absent proof, it is best to simply apologize and be done with it.

Anyway, ISF is perhaps a promising board, but the mods really do sometimes need to give their heads a shake. The "Trials of...." thread was as Halkides had said upthread here, kind of in a feed-back loop of Vixen posting something then the rest "correcting", sometimes with personalized comments sometimes not. Oh well.

Soon all this shall pass.
    “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: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm


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

Postby Samson » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:14 pm


I read what comments I could make sense of with google translate, and there seemed to be a strong belief that because the supreme court finally said there were more people involved, then Sollecito and Knox are guilty, and that they were released due to American pressure rather than that they were innocent.

Indeed a fruitful area for discussion here. For example Amanda wants to return to Italy. How would she be treated?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:56 pm

Samson wrote:

I read what comments I could make sense of with google translate, and there seemed to be a strong belief that because the supreme court finally said there were more people involved, then Sollecito and Knox are guilty, and that they were released due to American pressure rather than that they were innocent.

Indeed a fruitful area for discussion here. For example Amanda wants to return to Italy. How would she be treated?



Two key points here -
1. I am still not clear on whether the SC actually concluded that there were multiple assailants as opposed to assuming arguendo that there were multiple assailants and reasoning that, even if there were, there was insufficient evidence to convict AK and RS. I would really like to get an impartial lawyer fluent in both languages to do a translation.
2. Even if the SC adopted the finding of the Guede court that there were multiple assailants, this procedure (taking a finding from another case and importing it into this case) is really improper (even though it may be permissible in Italy). In the United States, findings from other cases can be used as collateral estoppel only when the party against whom the finding was made participated in the other case. In this situation, the importation of such a finding is especially inappropriate because - 1. both parties in the Guede case (the prosecutor and Guede) had an interest in a finding of multiple assailants (Guede because it tended to reduce his role; the prosecutor because it strengthened his case against AK and RS), 2. the Guede case was under the short form process with fewer procedural protections and AK and RS never agreed to have key findings litigated against them under the short form process, and 3. as a matter of fact, the issue of multiple assailants was never fully litigated in the Guede case and thus was never tested by the adversary process.
Think about it this way. If I am charged with murder in Washington DC and my alibi defense is that at the time of the homicide I was breaking into a house in Philadelphia with you as my accomplice and I get acquitted based on that alibi, can you be convicted of burglary based on the finding in my case that we were breaking into a house that night? Of course not. It would be outrageous.
Similarly, the use of the Guede multiple assailant finding against AK and RS is outrageous.
In fact, Massei - in the original trial - spent quite a bit of time on this issue and conceded that the forensic evidence was inconclusive but seemed to rely on the victim's marital arts expertise for an assumption that Guede could not have prevailed against her alone. This is very questionable given the size, weight, strength and surprise advantages that Guede would have likely had. Even Massei saw it as a very close question.
So we should not concede this issue at all. If the SC actually found that there were multiple assailants - and it is not clear that they did - the SC erred in giving deference to the Guede court findings. AK and RS are entitled to a finding on this issue based solely on the evidence in their own case.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:44 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Samson wrote:

I read what comments I could make sense of with google translate, and there seemed to be a strong belief that because the supreme court finally said there were more people involved, then Sollecito and Knox are guilty, and that they were released due to American pressure rather than that they were innocent.

Indeed a fruitful area for discussion here. For example Amanda wants to return to Italy. How would she be treated?



Two key points here -
1. I am still not clear on whether the SC actually concluded that there were multiple assailants as opposed to assuming arguendo that there were multiple assailants and reasoning that, even if there were, there was insufficient evidence to convict AK and RS. I would really like to get an impartial lawyer fluent in both languages to do a translation.
2. Even if the SC adopted the finding of the Guede court that there were multiple assailants, this procedure (taking a finding from another case and importing it into this case) is really improper (even though it may be permissible in Italy). In the United States, findings from other cases can be used as collateral estoppel only when the party against whom the finding was made participated in the other case. In this situation, the importation of such a finding is especially inappropriate because - 1. both parties in the Guede case (the prosecutor and Guede) had an interest in a finding of multiple assailants (Guede because it tended to reduce his role; the prosecutor because it strengthened his case against AK and RS), 2. the Guede case was under the short form process with fewer procedural protections and AK and RS never agreed to have key findings litigated against them under the short form process, and 3. as a matter of fact, the issue of multiple assailants was never fully litigated in the Guede case and thus was never tested by the adversary process.
Think about it this way. If I am charged with murder in Washington DC and my alibi defense is that at the time of the homicide I was breaking into a house in Philadelphia with you as my accomplice and I get acquitted based on that alibi, can you be convicted of burglary based on the finding in my case that we were breaking into a house that night? Of course not. It would be outrageous.
Similarly, the use of the Guede multiple assailant finding against AK and RS is outrageous.
In fact, Massei - in the original trial - spent quite a bit of time on this issue and conceded that the forensic evidence was inconclusive but seemed to rely on the victim's marital arts expertise for an assumption that Guede could not have prevailed against her alone. This is very questionable given the size, weight, strength and surprise advantages that Guede would have likely had. Even Massei saw it as a very close question.
So we should not concede this issue at all. If the SC actually found that there were multiple assailants - and it is not clear that they did - the SC erred in giving deference to the Guede court findings. AK and RS are entitled to a finding on this issue based solely on the evidence in their own case.


"Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend suing judges and jury for wrongful conviction"

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/12 ... ction.html

"Amanda Knox’s boyfriend sues judges and jury

Raffaele Sollecito is seeking €3 million (£2.5 million) in a lawsuit against prosecutors and jurors for his wrongful conviction for the 2007 murder of the British exchange student Meredith Kercher."

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aman ... -n95pn9nl5

As usual, the media - including the Italian medial - are getting the story somewhat wrong.

Italian law, as reported in a reliable source - the Library of Congress of the US - is as follows:

"Italy: Civil Liability of Judges

(Apr. 9, 2015) Italy has approved new legislation on the civil liability of judges. (Law No. 18 of February 27, 2015, on Civil Liability of Magistrates, GAZETTA UFFICIALE (G. U.) No. 52, NORMATTIVA, amending Law No. 117 of April 13, 1988, Indemnification of Damages Caused in the Exercise of Judicial Functions and Civil Liability of Judges, G. U. No. 88, NORMATTIVA (both in Italian).) Law No. 18 aims to enforce the provisions governing the civil liability of the state and of magistrates, particularly in view of Italy’s status as a Member State of the European Union. (Law No. 18, art. 1(1).)

The law specifies that the regular exercise of judicial functions by a judge, including the interpretation of legal norms and valuation of facts and evidence, may not trigger the judge’s civil liability. (Id. art. 2(b).)

It provides, however, that a judge can commit gross negligence giving rise to civil liability when there is a manifest violation or Italian law or EU law in the form of misrepresentation of fact or evidence, when it is established that a fact was misrepresented, or when a preliminary injunction in persona or in rem is issued beyond the scope of cases permitted by law or without legal grounds. (Id. art. 2(c).)

The determination of cases in which there is a manifest violation of EU law depends on several factors:

the degree of clarity and precision of the violated provisions;
the gravity of the violation;
a failure to comply with the obligation of preliminary renvoi (the obligation of a court to submit certain matters to the EU Court of Justice); and
the existence of a contradiction of the act or the measure with an express interpretation of EU law given by the Court of Justice of the European Union. (Law No. 18, art. 2(c).)

When a determination has been made that a judge has committed an act of denial of justice or has fraudulently or with inexcusable negligence committed a manifest violation of EU law or a misrepresentation of fact or evidence, compensation will be granted to the victim. Within two years of the compensation being granted, the President of the Council of Ministers must take indemnity action against the judge. (Id. art. 4(1).)

Except in cases of fraud, the new legislation limits the amount of the indemnity to be recovered from judges to half of their annual salary at the time of the indemnity action, even when the actions for damage have been exercised by two or more persons. (Id. art. 5(1).) In any case, the amount of the indemnity may not be higher than one-third of a judge’s annual net salary. (Id.)

Before January 31 of each year, the Court of Accounts will request information from the President of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice concerning convictions for indemnity actions, issued within the preceding year, that result from crimes committed by judges in the exercise of their functions. (Id. art. 7(1).)"

Source: http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/art ... of-judges/

So what is happening is that Raffaele is suing the Italian Republic (the State) and naming the judges and prosecutors whose actions or inactions he alleges were in violation of Italian or EU (read: European Convention of Human Rights) law or were grossly or inexcusably negligent and/or were misrepresentations of the facts and evidence.

The Italian Republic, within 2 years after a judgment finding liability on the part of the State on account of the actions of the named officials (judges and/or prosecutors) may recover funds from those individuals not exceeding one-third of their annual salary.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:39 pm

This information may be of relevance regarding incidents of police misconduct in Italy, not including suppression of lab data, circa 2000:

".... According to reports published during the year 2001 by Amnesty International, there were numerous allegations of the deliberate use of excessive force against individuals detained in connection with common criminal offenses or in the course of identity checks. According to allegations, mistreatment, when it occurs, usually occurs at the time of arrest and during the first 24 hours in custody and affects both citizens and foreigners. A large number of alleged victims were women. A high proportion of the allegations received by Amnesty International concern foreign nationals (many of them from Africa), as well as Roma. ...."

Source: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwins ... italy.html
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Annella » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:36 am

'Jackie' at dotnut has some HUUUUGE and growing psychological problems. Just sayin'!

( a hoot to watch his development actually)
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:27 am

To summarize what is known about Raffaele Sollecito's civil suit, it is provided for in a law that was passed in 1988 and reformulated in 2015. It is important that it is the State - the Italian Republic - that is the defendant in the civil suit (for 3 million euro). The various relevant magistrates (magistrates, prosecutors, and judges) are named as contributing to the wrongful behavior, and are held financially responsible by the State for part of the damages if the plaintiff (Sollecito) wins a definitive verdict.

Whether or not the suit will be successful in the Italian court system is another matter. However, it is necessary, according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law, to follow this legal path to its conclusion in order to file a complaint with the ECHR of a violation of rights for an unfair civil trial, if Sollecito loses and believes his rights to civil redress were violated.

The point of the suit, beyond compensation, is that it is a mechanism for achieving an official recognition of violations of Italian law and EU (and European Convention) law in Sollecito's trials that were not considered in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. Being a plaintiff in a civil suit, Sollecito should be in a position to obtain a review of these violations. Should the Italian judicial system finally and definitively refuse to conduct this review in the civil trial, the ECHR would be the next step obtain recognition of the violations.

The misconduct of the police (such as mistreatment during the interrogation and, with the aid or complicity of the prosecutors and judges, suppressing exculpatory evidence) would potentially be covered under the review of the conduct of the magistrates, including the prosecutors and judges. Separate civil action against the police would also appear to be possible under Italian law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Zrausch » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:38 pm

Annella wrote:'Jackie' at dotnut has some HUUUUGE and growing psychological problems. Just sayin'!

( a hoot to watch his development actually)


You'd think someone so obsessed with lawyers would take the advice of his favorite one, Alan Dershowitz, and concede there was reasonable doubt and move on with his life.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

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

Postby Samson » Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:03 pm

Numbers wrote:To summarize what is known about Raffaele Sollecito's civil suit, it is provided for in a law that was passed in 1988 and reformulated in 2015. It is important that it is the State - the Italian Republic - that is the defendant in the civil suit (for 3 million euro). The various relevant magistrates (magistrates, prosecutors, and judges) are named as contributing to the wrongful behavior, and are held financially responsible by the State for part of the damages if the plaintiff (Sollecito) wins a definitive verdict.

Whether or not the suit will be successful in the Italian court system is another matter. However, it is necessary, according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law, to follow this legal path to its conclusion in order to file a complaint with the ECHR of a violation of rights for an unfair civil trial, if Sollecito loses and believes his rights to civil redress were violated.

The point of the suit, beyond compensation, is that it is a mechanism for achieving an official recognition of violations of Italian law and EU (and European Convention) law in Sollecito's trials that were not considered in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. Being a plaintiff in a civil suit, Sollecito should be in a position to obtain a review of these violations. Should the Italian judicial system finally and definitively refuse to conduct this review in the civil trial, the ECHR would be the next step obtain recognition of the violations.

The misconduct of the police (such as mistreatment during the interrogation and, with the aid or complicity of the prosecutors and judges, suppressing exculpatory evidence) would potentially be covered under the review of the conduct of the magistrates, including the prosecutors and judges. Separate civil action against the police would also appear to be possible under Italian law.

Maybe this Italian project by Raffaele will be an international trailblazer.
I can see how all countries should follow it very closely.
Just when there seemed little left to be said...
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:25 pm

Samson wrote:
Numbers wrote:To summarize what is known about Raffaele Sollecito's civil suit, it is provided for in a law that was passed in 1988 and reformulated in 2015. It is important that it is the State - the Italian Republic - that is the defendant in the civil suit (for 3 million euro). The various relevant magistrates (magistrates, prosecutors, and judges) are named as contributing to the wrongful behavior, and are held financially responsible by the State for part of the damages if the plaintiff (Sollecito) wins a definitive verdict.

Whether or not the suit will be successful in the Italian court system is another matter. However, it is necessary, according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law, to follow this legal path to its conclusion in order to file a complaint with the ECHR of a violation of rights for an unfair civil trial, if Sollecito loses and believes his rights to civil redress were violated.

The point of the suit, beyond compensation, is that it is a mechanism for achieving an official recognition of violations of Italian law and EU (and European Convention) law in Sollecito's trials that were not considered in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. Being a plaintiff in a civil suit, Sollecito should be in a position to obtain a review of these violations. Should the Italian judicial system finally and definitively refuse to conduct this review in the civil trial, the ECHR would be the next step obtain recognition of the violations.

The misconduct of the police (such as mistreatment during the interrogation and, with the aid or complicity of the prosecutors and judges, suppressing exculpatory evidence) would potentially be covered under the review of the conduct of the magistrates, including the prosecutors and judges. Separate civil action against the police would also appear to be possible under Italian law.

Maybe this Italian project by Raffaele will be an international trailblazer.
I can see how all countries should follow it very closely.
Just when there seemed little left to be said...


It might be that Raffaele's civil suit will bring out important information. But the case is in Italy, and the Italian courts are unpredictable. The Italian judges may have ways to prevent any meaningful review which would show their colleagues in a negative light. Thus, there may be ECHR case at the conclusion of the civil suit ... depending on whether or not the Italian judicial system treats the civil suit fairly.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Samson » Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:21 pm

Numbers wrote:
Samson wrote:
Numbers wrote:To summarize what is known about Raffaele Sollecito's civil suit, it is provided for in a law that was passed in 1988 and reformulated in 2015. It is important that it is the State - the Italian Republic - that is the defendant in the civil suit (for 3 million euro). The various relevant magistrates (magistrates, prosecutors, and judges) are named as contributing to the wrongful behavior, and are held financially responsible by the State for part of the damages if the plaintiff (Sollecito) wins a definitive verdict.

Whether or not the suit will be successful in the Italian court system is another matter. However, it is necessary, according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law, to follow this legal path to its conclusion in order to file a complaint with the ECHR of a violation of rights for an unfair civil trial, if Sollecito loses and believes his rights to civil redress were violated.

The point of the suit, beyond compensation, is that it is a mechanism for achieving an official recognition of violations of Italian law and EU (and European Convention) law in Sollecito's trials that were not considered in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. Being a plaintiff in a civil suit, Sollecito should be in a position to obtain a review of these violations. Should the Italian judicial system finally and definitively refuse to conduct this review in the civil trial, the ECHR would be the next step obtain recognition of the violations.

The misconduct of the police (such as mistreatment during the interrogation and, with the aid or complicity of the prosecutors and judges, suppressing exculpatory evidence) would potentially be covered under the review of the conduct of the magistrates, including the prosecutors and judges. Separate civil action against the police would also appear to be possible under Italian law.

Maybe this Italian project by Raffaele will be an international trailblazer.
I can see how all countries should follow it very closely.
Just when there seemed little left to be said...


It might be that Raffaele's civil suit will bring out important information. But the case is in Italy, and the Italian courts are unpredictable. The Italian judges may have ways to prevent any meaningful review which would show their colleagues in a negative light. Thus, there may be ECHR case at the conclusion of the civil suit ... depending on whether or not the Italian judicial system treats the civil suit fairly.

My point is more that this potential for remedy looks to be a template that could be used everywhere. It would provide ideal deterrence anywhere such remedies had force.
The individual elements involved in Sollecito's wrongful conviction occur in all the cases I have studied, including 6 in New Zealand where not one individual responsible has ever been held to account. I am talking just murder cases here.
There is a private prosecution going to jury trial in August this year, Arthur Taylor vs Secret witness C following the wrongful conviction of David Tamihere for the murder of two Swedish tourists in 1989. If we had an opportunity like this Italan case the system would potentially be deterred from mounting false prosecutions.
That is why it looks so intriguing, a kind of reverse class action.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby european neighbour » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:07 am

Raffaele`s problem is that he only can rely on the previous but weaker law from 1988 instead of the recent law from 2015, because also towards the ECHR there is "no punishment without law".
european neighbour
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

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

Postby Numbers » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:13 am

european neighbour wrote:Raffaele`s problem is that he only can rely on the previous but weaker law from 1988 instead of the recent law from 2015, because also towards the ECHR there is "no punishment without law".


This is a good point, but the liability of the magistrates may be different than that of the State, which may still have liability depending on Italian, EU, and ECHR law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

an axiom of DNA profiling

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:03 pm

"There is no information inherent in the DNA profile that provides information about ‘how’ or ‘when’ the profile was transferred."
DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods, Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec; 6(6): 679–688.
P. Gill, L. Gusmão, H. Haned, W.R. Mayr, N. Morling, W. Parson, L. Prieto, M. Prinz, H. Schneider, P.M. Schneider, and B.S. Weir link to abstract

This is an important principle in DNA profiling. I have even heard it referred to as an axiom.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

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

Postby B_Real » Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:21 pm

Annella wrote:'Jackie' at dotnut has some HUUUUGE and growing psychological problems. Just sayin'!

( a hoot to watch his development actually)




Image
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

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

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:19 pm

B_Real wrote:
Annella wrote:'Jackie' at dotnut has some HUUUUGE and growing psychological problems. Just sayin'!

( a hoot to watch his development actually)




Image


To B-Real

Thank you B-Real for this wonderful information even I am shock of seeing some new shocking news right now over the decade and I bet now the TJMK/PMF site is going to go haywire over of what on earth are they going to say next. I would love to see Jackie or Peter to rub it in. I got a hunch they will even I am not a Trump support or Hilary support. I voted neither of them. The person who I wanted to vote for was my beloved dog: Lulu McGuire. Sorry it just me of thinking why not! What wrong with a dog of being a president and it bother people. I say: GROW UP IT NOT GOING TO KILL YOU. YOUR HURT OF LOSING A LOVE ONE!!!

I love it even some people complain of things even now I can see why Democratic party are complaining of being babies and it bother you that Donald doing things of supporting the Russia president who was a convicted murder. I support 4 convicted murders even yes I am more scary then an average bear. I am not anyone friend. Let face it! I go through tough pain of being a retarded monster and it never fun of why I am retarded even it stinks to hurt. But anyway here is the link and enjoy reading this B-Real!!!

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worl ... y-clinton/

I just got a hunch that Peter or Jackie or maybe Ergon is going to talk about this into on TJMK/PMF I know so even I got a huge hunch on all about this even I just have different taste as well. It would be nice if people really listen to me if they had voted for Mark Rubio instead. He my taste for president of 2016 and that is were I stand even I only voted for a dog to be president!!!

Rats: I should had voted for Anne Hathaway instead!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: an axiom of DNA profiling

Postby Sara Sharma » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:46 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:"There is no information inherent in the DNA profile that provides information about ‘how’ or ‘when’ the profile was transferred."
DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods, Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec; 6(6): 679–688.
P. Gill, L. Gusmão, H. Haned, W.R. Mayr, N. Morling, W. Parson, L. Prieto, M. Prinz, H. Schneider, P.M. Schneider, and B.S. Weir link to abstract

This is an important principle in DNA profiling. I have even heard it referred to as an axiom.


This cannot be repeated too often.

It is sad that so many people have trouble understanding this.
User avatar
Sara Sharma
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: an axiom of DNA profiling

Postby Mediocrates » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:46 pm

Sara Sharma wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:"There is no information inherent in the DNA profile that provides information about ‘how’ or ‘when’ the profile was transferred."
DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods, Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec; 6(6): 679–688.
P. Gill, L. Gusmão, H. Haned, W.R. Mayr, N. Morling, W. Parson, L. Prieto, M. Prinz, H. Schneider, P.M. Schneider, and B.S. Weir link to abstract

This is an important principle in DNA profiling. I have even heard it referred to as an axiom.


This cannot be repeated too often.

It is sad that so many people have trouble understanding this.


In any murder case involving cohabitants, coworkers, family, friends, etc., the same could be said of fingerprints, hairs, blood traces, clothing fibers, etc.. That is why it is called CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence - an inference must be drawn in light of other, corroborating facts/circumstances in order to reach a finding that supports a guilty verdict. It's interesting to me that many people seem completely unwilling to draw these inferences in criminal cases.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:49 am

Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP)
Article 192 Evaluation of evidence
1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.
3. The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offence or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.
4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall apply also to the statements made by a person accused of an offence that is joined to the one being prosecuted, in the case referred to in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

The Marasca CSC panel ruled, in their motivation report, that inferences from the alleged DNA evidence on the bra clasp and knife blade could not be used to infer the guilt of Knox and Sollecito (quashing the Nencini court verdict) because that alleged evidence was not "serious, precise and consistent" in accordance with CPP Article 192.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: an axiom of DNA profiling

Postby NotEvenWrong » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:42 pm

Mediocrates wrote:
Sara Sharma wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:"There is no information inherent in the DNA profile that provides information about ‘how’ or ‘when’ the profile was transferred."
DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods, Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec; 6(6): 679–688.
P. Gill, L. Gusmão, H. Haned, W.R. Mayr, N. Morling, W. Parson, L. Prieto, M. Prinz, H. Schneider, P.M. Schneider, and B.S. Weir link to abstract

This is an important principle in DNA profiling. I have even heard it referred to as an axiom.


This cannot be repeated too often.

It is sad that so many people have trouble understanding this.


In any murder case involving cohabitants, coworkers, family, friends, etc., the same could be said of fingerprints, hairs, blood traces, clothing fibers, etc.. That is why it is called CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence - an inference must be drawn in light of other, corroborating facts/circumstances in order to reach a finding that supports a guilty verdict. It's interesting to me that many people seem completely unwilling to draw these inferences in criminal cases.


Right but the DNA in question would be at the scene regardless if the person committed the murder because one of the people lived there and the other had been there multiple times on account of dating one of the residents. Thus no inference can be drawn between the DNA in question and the murder.

"It's interesting to me that many people seem completely unwilling" to realize that some "evidence" isn't actually inculpatory evidence because it does not distinguish between guilt and innocence.

This is kinda what I was getting at in the other thread Mediocrates -- perhaps you are unable to evaluate evidence correctly, so you need to see arguing experts in front of you under cross-examination and need to go by emotional feel of the responses rather than rationality and logic? This does not mean other people are not capable of logically reasoning through the evidence. Some people can look at the actual arguments, check the facts with the published scientific literature, and figure out which side and argument is correct. Not everyone can do this, so they have to go by emotion. This goes hand in hand with accusing Amanda of being an immoral slut. Since they cannot reason they go on the emotional attack and start an online witch hunt.
NotEvenWrong
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:23 am

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

Postby Numbers » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:57 am

Here's my prediction for how part of the remainder of this case will play out:

1. If and when the ECHR rules* that Amanda did not receive a fair trial in her conviction for calunnia, she will be entitled, under Italian law (Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011) to request a revision trial.

2. If Italy follows its solemn treaty obligations under the Council of Europe treaties, it must obey the final judgments of the ECHR. Italy has, as far as I know, generally done so. So Italy will grant Amanda a revision trial on the calunnia charge.

3. There will be no evidence to present on the calunnia charge, because all of Amanda's statements from the interrogation and her memoriales will not be usable against her for the calunnia charge or any charge.

4. Thus, Amanda will be acquitted of the calunnia charge, or the case will be dismissed by the revision court as unfounded, which is the equivalent under law to an acquittal.

5. The dismissal/acquittal on the calunnia charge will enable Amanda to seek compensation for the three years of the calunnia sentence under the miscarriage of justice law and under civil law (she would be entitled to file a civil action against the state of Italy).

6. The PGP will claim that the events 1 through 5 above were the result of a conspiracy by the Masons, the Mafia, the US Government, and outer space aliens.
_______
* A brief review on the ECHR and how its ruling in Knox v. Italy will affect Amanda's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba:

The ECHR is not a court of appeal and does not judge anyone "guilty" or "not guilty". The only "person" on trial - and it is really a kind of civil trial - is the respondent state, in this case, Italy. The ECHR will find either that Amanda's rights under the Convention were violated by Italy, or that they were not, for each of her allegations of a violation. This has nothing to do directly with whether or not she is "innocent" (not guilty) or guilty of calunnia. However, by the ECHR ruling that Italy had violated her rights, Italy will be obligated to give Amanda a revision trial strictly adhering to the Convention. This means that "evidence" consisting of statements obtained from her under coercion in an interrogation without a lawyer, and defensive statements (the memoriales) she wrote in custody but before she had the counsel of a lawyer, will not be admissible as evidence against her. Since these were the only evidence against her for the charge of calunnia, she must be acquitted of the charge of calunnia, or the charge must be dismissed (equivalent to an acquittal).

I should add that, in my opinion, based on my knowledge of the evidence (facts) of the case (as presented at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com) and from reading relevant ECHR case-law, I am confident that the ECHR would rule that Italy had violated Amanda's Convention rights, allowing her to request a revision trial from Italy in accordance with Italian law.

The relevant Convention rights are the approximate equivalent of what in the US would be called procedural and substantive due process**. In detail, the Convention rights are stronger than US due process in some respects; for example, during interrogation of a de facto suspect, a lawyer must be present under ECHR case law, unless the suspect knowingly signs a waiver. If a lawyer of the de facto suspect's choice is not present during the interrogation, and there was no knowingly signed waiver, statements made by that suspect cannot be used as the basis for conviction.

** "Due process" being US legal jargon, found in the Constitution (5th & 14th Amendments), meaning the statutory and judicial measures, intended to assure a fair trial, that are the rights of a person accused in criminal proceedings.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:12 am

Numbers wrote:Here's my prediction for how part of the remainder of this case will play out:

1. If and when the ECHR rules* that Amanda did not receive a fair trial in her conviction for calunnia, she will be entitled, under Italian law (Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011) to request a revision trial.

2. If Italy follows its solemn treaty obligations under the Council of Europe treaties, it must obey the final judgments of the ECHR. Italy has, as far as I know, generally done so. So Italy will grant Amanda a revision trial on the calunnia charge.

3. There will be no evidence to present on the calunnia charge, because all of Amanda's statements from the interrogation and her memoriales will not be usable against her for the calunnia charge or any charge.

4. Thus, Amanda will be acquitted of the calunnia charge, or the case will be dismissed by the revision court as unfounded, which is the equivalent under law to an acquittal.

5. The dismissal/acquittal on the calunnia charge will enable Amanda to seek compensation for the three years of the calunnia sentence under the miscarriage of justice law and under civil law (she would be entitled to file a civil action against the state of Italy).

6. The PGP will claim that the events 1 through 5 above were the result of a conspiracy by the Masons, the Mafia, the US Government, and outer space aliens.
_______
* A brief review on the ECHR and how its ruling in Knox v. Italy will affect Amanda's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba:

The ECHR is not a court of appeal and does not judge anyone "guilty" or "not guilty". The only "person" on trial - and it is really a kind of civil trial - is the respondent state, in this case, Italy. The ECHR will find either that Amanda's rights under the Convention were violated by Italy, or that they were not, for each of her allegations of a violation. This has nothing to do directly with whether or not she is "innocent" (not guilty) or guilty of calunnia. However, by the ECHR ruling that Italy had violated her rights, Italy will be obligated to give Amanda a revision trial strictly adhering to the Convention. This means that "evidence" consisting of statements obtained from her under coercion in an interrogation without a lawyer, and defensive statements (the memoriales) she wrote in custody but before she had the counsel of a lawyer, will not be admissible as evidence against her. Since these were the only evidence against her for the charge of calunnia, she must be acquitted of the charge of calunnia, or the charge must be dismissed (equivalent to an acquittal).

I should add that, in my opinion, based on my knowledge of the evidence (facts) of the case (as presented at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com) and from reading relevant ECHR case-law, I am confident that the ECHR would rule that Italy had violated Amanda's Convention rights, allowing her to request a revision trial from Italy in accordance with Italian law.

The relevant Convention rights are the approximate equivalent of what in the US would be called procedural and substantive due process**. In detail, the Convention rights are stronger than US due process in some respects; for example, during interrogation of a de facto suspect, a lawyer must be present under ECHR case law, unless the suspect knowingly signs a waiver. If a lawyer of the de facto suspect's choice is not present during the interrogation, and there was no knowingly signed waiver, statements made by that suspect cannot be used as the basis for conviction.

** "Due process" being US legal jargon, found in the Constitution (5th & 14th Amendments), meaning the statutory and judicial measures, intended to assure a fair trial, that are the rights of a person accused in criminal proceedings.


I've been asked a few times, directly or indirectly, by both PIP and PGP posters, whether Amanda and her legal team fulfilled the requirement of notifying the Italian authorities of her allegations of mistreatment and coercion in the interrogation in order to "exhaust domestic remedies" as required for the ECHR to consider claims against a state for a violation of the Convention.

According to ECHR case law, Amanda and her legal team did exhaust legal remedies on her allegations of coercion and mistreatment. One misconception, especially prevalent among the PGP, is that "all domestic remedies" means "every possible path of remedies". However, under ECHR case-law, it means "all steps along one path of remedies". Thus, complaining in open court of mistreatment and coercion in an interrogation, and including those complaints in each appeal until there is a final decision, completes all the steps along one path of remedies. One does not need to pursue a second, parallel path, such as filing formal complaints with the police or prosecutor to achieve exhaustion of domestic remedies according to the ECHR case-law.

The decision of the Gemelli CSC panel, which was mainly focused on a (final?) appeal of Amanda's arrest, set into res judicata that, despite the violation of CPP Article 63 during the interrogation, Amanda's writing of Memoriale 1 referencing the interrogation - and its confused statements it included - meant that her interrogation statements could be used against her but "only" for the criminal charge of calunnia against Lumumba. I don't know if there was an "ordinary" way for Amanda to appeal that decision. The Gemelli CSC panel MR, available in Italian, is called "2008 Cassazione confirming pre-trial detention: Knox" at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivatio ... documents/. Memoriale 1, which was delivered to the police by Amanda and which was in the case file available to the prosecutor, was itself a complaint of coercion and mistreatment that should have generated an "independent and effective" investigation of those allegations by the Italian authorities.

Amanda testified at the first trial on the circumstance of the interrogation at the first trial. Under ECHR case-law, her description of coercion alleging mistreatment (in violation of Convention Article 3) at that trial, just as the description of coercion in her Memoriale 1, should have resulted in the Italian authorities launching an "independent and effective" investigation of the allegations. There was mention of the coercion/mistreatment in each appeal of the calunnia conviction. There was no such investigation, and that would mean a violation of the procedural aspects of Article 3 according to ECHR case-law. The Italian authorities were well aware of her statements alleging coercion and mistreatment, as these led to her being criminally charged with "aggravated and continuing" calunnia against the police and Mignini. The Boninsegna court acquitted her of those charges in a final (not appealed by the Italian authorities) judgment.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:39 am

Amanda complained of police mistreatment in court and in each of her appeals against the judgment of conviction for calunnia, but (apparently) did not file the formal complaint required in Italy for the prosecution of the police.

Some posters have argued that this means that she did not exhaust domestic remedies regarding her claim before the ECHR of a violation of Convention Article 3, the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

However, this situation of an individual complaining of police mistreatment in court but not filing a formal complaint has come up previously, the ECHR has found that the complaint in court is sufficient, because the States ("The High Contracting Parties" including Italy) that have signed the Convention treaty have pledged on the basis of Article 1: "The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention." These rights include, of course, Article 3.

Here's an example from ECHR case law:

Grinenko v Ukraine 33627/06 15-11-2012

Grinenko maintained that Ukraine had violated his rights under Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty, prohibition against arbitrary detention), and 6 (right to a fair trial) in the course of a criminal case: an allegation that he had ordered a murder for hire.

Before the ECHR, Ukraine's defense was that Grinenko's application for violation of Article 3 was inadmissible because he had not followed proper procedures for a complaint in the Ukrainian justice system. He had repeatedly mentioned his complaint in court proceedings, but had not filed the appropriate formal complaint with the authorities.

ECHR judgment: State authorities must take action whenever there is any credible allegation of mistreatment by State agents, and statements by an alleged victim in court are adequate to bring such allegations to the level of requiring an effective investigation. Failure of Ukraine to conduct an effective investigation was thus a violation of Convention Article 3.

The relevant excerpt from the ECHR judgment:

61. The Court reiterates that where an individual makes an arguable claim that he has been ill-treated by the State authorities in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. ....

62. ... [T]he Court considers that the applicant made an arguable complaint of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities which triggered their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation of the alleged facts. Meanwhile, the applicant’s allegations were examined exclusively by the courts in the course of legal argument concerning the admissibility of evidence at trial. ....
____
What independent and effective investigation did Italy conduct with regard to Amanda's complaints of police mistreatment? One measure was ... Italy launched a criminal case against Amanda for calunnia against the police and Mignini. That's not the kind of investigation that the ECHR envisions, even though Amanda was acquitted by the Boninsegna court.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby Numbers » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:20 am

On ISF, LondonJohn has posted a Newsweek article link with the infamous quote from Chief of Police of Perugia, de Felice:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

http://www.newsweek.com/perugias-extrem ... rder-97137

This is an important article because it shows that the police "knew" before the interrogation what result they wished to obtain - that is, the naming of Patrick Lumumba as the murder/rapist, with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as collaborators with Lumumba.

I hope that the ECHR is aware of this quote.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

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

Postby KayPea » Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:03 pm

Numbers wrote:On ISF, LondonJohn has posted a Newsweek article link with the infamous quote from Chief of Police of Perugia, de Felice:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

http://www.newsweek.com/perugias-extrem ... rder-97137

This is an important article because it shows that the police "knew" before the interrogation what result they wished to obtain - that is, the naming of Patrick Lumumba as the murder/rapist, with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as collaborators with Lumumba.

I hope that the ECHR is aware of this quote.



They sure left a trail of breadcrumbs, didn't they.
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

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

Postby Annella » Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:56 am

My funny bone has been tickled. Courtesy of Vixen/KrissyG1/Christina Giscombe over at ISF.

...........
AIUI Ergon is the son of a respected diplomat and has lived all over the world. He is from nearby where Mez' mother hails from and she herself was a research academic in the Pompei project in Italy, and dad John is a professional journalist. Whilst that might be low class in the USA, in the UK it is a respected career. Mez' school was more expensive than Amanda's, if you want to make comparisons, which are odious.

There is nothing wrong with being working class, anyway. We are all an accident of our birth as to our station in life.

.........

.............

As for beauty and happiness, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

My experience of the PGP is that of people overwhelmingly only interested in the facts of the case.

.........


Who knew Naseer Ahmad's dad was a diplomat? I am assuming he would have been representing Pakistan given that is where Ergon/Ahmad is PHYSICALLY from. We all know he is actually from another world but that is for another day. :batshit crazy:: But looking at the two Ahmad's listed as Pakistani diplomats here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... _diplomats there seems to be a problem.
Re Meredith's mother being an academic researcher, if that was the case then good for her. Would have been wonderful if she had used those research skills to see the truth re case but......

Oh, and another wee point.

Vixen again

AIUI Raff and Andy (Gumbel) are back in court tomorrow, on trial for calunnia in the book Honor Bound. I bet publishers Simon & Shuster are relieved it never came out in the UK as we have strict libel laws here.


Errrr...... a little enlightenment here... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Honor-Bound-Jo ... +Sollecito

Regardless of whether the book is actively promoted on Amazon UK, it IS available new or used and dispatched within the UK as well as USA.
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

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

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:11 am

If you are in the US, you can get it pretty damn cheap. . .Much cheaper than your listing
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests