Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:21 pm
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:21 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 29 of 34 [ 8337 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 34  Next
Author Message

Offline olleosnep


Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:03 pm

Posts: 117

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: ECtHR   

Fast Pete wrote:
Ergon is right. Those were not depositions or minutes Knox signed on 6-7 Nov, they were statements not required under any law which Knox herself insisted upon.


All the depositions, including the ones I linked to, are always signed. All the depositions end with the following phrase:

"F.L.C.S." which stands for "fatto, letto, confermato e sottoscritto" or they end in L.C.S. "letto, confermato e sottoscritto". The 'long hand' version can be seen here:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/d ... lecito.pdf

Regarding the 01:45 K deposition, I think it's a misconception that that deposition is a recording of K being questioned as a suspect. That 01:45 deposition is merely a record of what K said up until the point when police halted the interrogation. The statement opens with the following "generic" notes:

"Recording of summary information by persons informed of facts rendered by:"

The opening paragraph states:

"On November 6, 2007, at the hour of 01:45 in Perugia at the offices of the Flying Squad of the police HQ of Perugia, in front of the undersigned officials of the judicial police inspector C Ficarra, Zugarini, Raffo in service respectively at the offices already noted and is present the nominated person in object (i.e. in the "object" paragraph above) who understands and speaks sufficiently the Italian language, helped by the interpreter of English language Donnino, who in regards to the death of Kercher Meredith, and following up to the declarations rendered previously, declares as follows:"

At the end, the deposition states (uniquely):
"This Office formally notes that the deposition is interrupted and Knox is placed at the deposition of the Judicial authority proceeding. Done. Read. Confirmed. Signed."

So the intent of the deposition was simply to capture what K had said up until the point where she placed herself at the crime scene. It is very clear from the document (a formal document that likely has been tweaked by all manner of police department lawyers throughout the country) she was not being interrogated as a suspect.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Midwichcuckoo


Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 9:26 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Midwichcuckoo, while the police may have felt there was evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, with some tub-thumping claims by police in the media they "always suspected her", the court allowed the 1:45 statement but not the 5:45 once RS refused to corroborate her alibi. She definitely was a suspect after that.


Ok, I think I'm starting to understand this. It looks like it's all about the difference between two crimes - first the murder and second, the false accusation. The ECtHR deals only with the false accusation and needs to be asked by Italy to treat the matters separately, I think.

The Supreme Court wouldn't allow the statement of 5:45 to be used against Amanda Knox for the murder, but it would allow her spontaneous note written afterwards against her for the murder (and the 1:45 against others but not her). It said she was a suspect in the murder case at the point Raffaelle Solecito took away her alibi, was therefore entitled to a lawyer and had a right to silence since that right looks like it goes along with the right to a lawyer. Also, because the police are confronting her with her lost alibi and challenging her about text messages, it seems pretty clear she was being interrogated or questioned before she admitted being at her house at the time of the murder and before she accused Lumumba of the killing.

For the false accusation, the Supreme Court says this is a different matter and Italian law can treat it differently. Amanda Knox is to be considered a witness not a suspect in this case. So, all the statements can be used against her. The court says:

"The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness." (thanks to Fast Pete for this)

So, she gets all the rights and protections available in connection with the murder case, but has no protection at all for the false accusation case. Italy, therefore has to convince the ECtHR that this 'splitting' is the right thing to have done. I suppose that depends on the court's previous cases and whether they believe she was hit or had pressure put on her and whether that matters.

It's quite an interesting idea that the Italian Supreme Court has said (I think), what can be summarised as, 'Amanda Knox's questioning for the murder case was not handled correctly because she was entitled to a lawyer before she said she was at the crime scene and had a right to silence but, she was not being questioned as a suspect in the false accusation case and so she didn't have any rights connected to this, happened to commit that crime and was correctly convicted of it.'
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Rumpole, it is established principle in most western jurisdictions that witness and suspect statements should be given to them in a language they are familiar with. Having said that, I'm comfortable with the fact she had the services of a translator, and she signed the Italian transcript. I still hold the minutes should have reflected she was advised of her rights to a lawyer and declined them. In whatever language. Keeping in mind that is one of the complaints raised?

Ergon, yes, of course, you're right about making statements - orally- in a language familiar to them, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect written records of those statements in other than national languages of the states concerned.

Btw: I'm afraid I jumped in the middle of a conversation without reading all the posts so was a bit off focus of the topic of your conversation. So I wasn't talking about the lawyer thing at all, and you are of course right that it would have been better if it was mentioned in the minutes - though I don't quite understand why she would need a lawyer on the 4th giving a witness statement? But you are probably talking about the later interviews? I don't think people usually have lawyers present when just giving witness statements. None of the other folks interviewed had afaik.

Well, but at least what is established is that AK produced a lot of work opportunities for several translators and interpreters around Perugia - every other deposition, statement, whatever by her seems to have yet another new interpreter name involved.


Last edited by Rumpole on Tue May 24, 2016 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Midwichcuckoo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Midwichcuckoo, while the police may have felt there was evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, with some tub-thumping claims by police in the media they "always suspected her", the court allowed the 1:45 statement but not the 5:45 once RS refused to corroborate her alibi. She definitely was a suspect after that.


Ok, I think I'm starting to understand this. It looks like it's all about the difference between two crimes - first the murder and second, the false accusation. The ECtHR deals only with the false accusation and needs to be asked by Italy to treat the matters separately, I think.

The Supreme Court wouldn't allow the statement of 5:45 to be used against Amanda Knox for the murder, but it would allow her spontaneous note written afterwards against her for the murder (and the 1:45 against others but not her). It said she was a suspect in the murder case at the point Raffaelle Solecito took away her alibi, was therefore entitled to a lawyer and had a right to silence since that right looks like it goes along with the right to a lawyer. Also, because the police are confronting her with her lost alibi and challenging her about text messages, it seems pretty clear she was being interrogated or questioned before she admitted being at her house at the time of the murder and before she accused Lumumba of the killing.

For the false accusation, the Supreme Court says this is a different matter and Italian law can treat it differently. Amanda Knox is to be considered a witness not a suspect in this case. So, all the statements can be used against her. The court says:

"The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness." (thanks to Fast Pete for this)

So, she gets all the rights and protections available in connection with the murder case, but has no protection at all for the false accusation case. Italy, therefore has to convince the ECtHR that this 'splitting' is the right thing to have done. I suppose that depends on the court's previous cases and whether they believe she was hit or had pressure put on her and whether that matters.

It's quite an interesting idea that the Italian Supreme Court has said (I think), what can be summarised as, 'Amanda Knox's questioning for the murder case was not handled correctly because she was entitled to a lawyer before she said she was at the crime scene and had a right to silence but, she was not being questioned as a suspect in the false accusation case and so she didn't have any rights connected to this, happened to commit that crime and was correctly convicted of it.'


Legal point: Sollecito's statement was signed AFTER Knox' one (circa 03:30, to her 01:45), so the claim she should have had a lawyer as soon as Sollecito withdrew her alibi, chronologically, did not kick in during her confession and accusation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: ECtHR   

Midwichcuckoo wrote:

So, she gets all the rights and protections available in connection with the murder case, but has no protection at all for the false accusation case. Italy, therefore has to convince the ECtHR that this 'splitting' is the right thing to have done. I suppose that depends on the court's previous cases and whether they believe she was hit or had pressure put on her and whether that matters.

It's quite an interesting idea that the Italian Supreme Court has said (I think), what can be summarised as, 'Amanda Knox's questioning for the murder case was not handled correctly because she was entitled to a lawyer before she said she was at the crime scene and had a right to silence but, she was not being questioned as a suspect in the false accusation case and so she didn't have any rights connected to this, happened to commit that crime and was correctly convicted of it.'

Put that way, midwichcuckoo, sure, an interesting conundrum but one that will be resolved by the Italian response to the court hopefully.

As even Marasca Bruno puts it (without addressing lack of lawyer):
Quote:
2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected as a partial final status, against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code. [21]

And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.
---
9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the 9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse,....
----
... Another element against her is certainly constituted by the false accusations [calunnia] against Mr. Lumumba, afore-mentioned above. It is not understandable, in fact, what reason could have driven the young woman to produce such serious accusations. The theory that she did so in order to escape psychological pressure from detectives seems extremely fragile, given that the woman [47] could not fail to realize that such accusations directed against her boss would turn out to be false very soon, given that, as she knew very well, Mr. Lumumba had no relationship with Ms. Kercher nor with the Via Della Pergola house. Furthermore, the ability to present an ironclad alibi would have allowed Lumumba to obtain release and subsequently the dropping of charges.

However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an
interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her.


So the Italian case is much stronger than I might have indicated. Knox had incriminated herself by her own words, becoming more than a person of interest, but a formal suspect. It will still IMO come down to whether ECtHR rules she should have had a lawyer present at 5:45 but that will only relate to calunnia, and not, murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

BTW, above quotes from our translation, not theirs :) Courtesy of True Justice for Meredith Kercher.

TMOMK Wiki
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Midwichcuckoo


Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 9:26 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 7:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Midwichcuckoo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Midwichcuckoo, while the police may have felt there was evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, with some tub-thumping claims by police in the media they "always suspected her", the court allowed the 1:45 statement but not the 5:45 once RS refused to corroborate her alibi. She definitely was a suspect after that.


Ok, I think I'm starting to understand this. It looks like it's all about the difference between two crimes - first the murder and second, the false accusation. The ECtHR deals only with the false accusation and needs to be asked by Italy to treat the matters separately, I think.

The Supreme Court wouldn't allow the statement of 5:45 to be used against Amanda Knox for the murder, but it would allow her spontaneous note written afterwards against her for the murder (and the 1:45 against others but not her). It said she was a suspect in the murder case at the point Raffaelle Solecito took away her alibi, was therefore entitled to a lawyer and had a right to silence since that right looks like it goes along with the right to a lawyer. Also, because the police are confronting her with her lost alibi and challenging her about text messages, it seems pretty clear she was being interrogated or questioned before she admitted being at her house at the time of the murder and before she accused Lumumba of the killing.

For the false accusation, the Supreme Court says this is a different matter and Italian law can treat it differently. Amanda Knox is to be considered a witness not a suspect in this case. So, all the statements can be used against her. The court says:

"The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness." (thanks to Fast Pete for this)

So, she gets all the rights and protections available in connection with the murder case, but has no protection at all for the false accusation case. Italy, therefore has to convince the ECtHR that this 'splitting' is the right thing to have done. I suppose that depends on the court's previous cases and whether they believe she was hit or had pressure put on her and whether that matters.

It's quite an interesting idea that the Italian Supreme Court has said (I think), what can be summarised as, 'Amanda Knox's questioning for the murder case was not handled correctly because she was entitled to a lawyer before she said she was at the crime scene and had a right to silence but, she was not being questioned as a suspect in the false accusation case and so she didn't have any rights connected to this, happened to commit that crime and was correctly convicted of it.'


Legal point: Sollecito's statement was signed AFTER Knox' one (circa 03:30, to her 01:45), so the claim she should have had a lawyer as soon as Sollecito withdrew her alibi, chronologically, did not kick in during her confession and accusation.


That's not what the Supreme Court said, though. They must have been referring to what Sollecito said verbally (if his written statement was at 03:30) because they said that Amanda Knox was a suspect and had a right to a lawyer before she made her statement.

But the courts also seem to be saying that none of this matters for the false accusation because Knox only has protection for the murder case. They are saying effectively that there is one interrogation for one crime. Knox happens to commit another, different crime during the interrogation and she has no rights for that one, because they weren't investigating that crime, which hadn't happened then. So, you cannot be a suspect in a crime which didn't exist. Even after she named Lumumba, nobody knew she had committed the crime of false accusation, because nobody knew at that time that it was false.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Midwichcuckoo


Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 9:26 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 7:55 am   Post subject: Re: ECtHR   

Ergon wrote:
Midwichcuckoo wrote:

So, she gets all the rights and protections available in connection with the murder case, but has no protection at all for the false accusation case. Italy, therefore has to convince the ECtHR that this 'splitting' is the right thing to have done. I suppose that depends on the court's previous cases and whether they believe she was hit or had pressure put on her and whether that matters.

It's quite an interesting idea that the Italian Supreme Court has said (I think), what can be summarised as, 'Amanda Knox's questioning for the murder case was not handled correctly because she was entitled to a lawyer before she said she was at the crime scene and had a right to silence but, she was not being questioned as a suspect in the false accusation case and so she didn't have any rights connected to this, happened to commit that crime and was correctly convicted of it.'

Put that way, midwichcuckoo, sure, an interesting conundrum but one that will be resolved by the Italian response to the court hopefully.

As even Marasca Bruno puts it (without addressing lack of lawyer):
Quote:
2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected as a partial final status, against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code. [21]

And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.
---
9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the 9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse,....
----
... Another element against her is certainly constituted by the false accusations [calunnia] against Mr. Lumumba, afore-mentioned above. It is not understandable, in fact, what reason could have driven the young woman to produce such serious accusations. The theory that she did so in order to escape psychological pressure from detectives seems extremely fragile, given that the woman [47] could not fail to realize that such accusations directed against her boss would turn out to be false very soon, given that, as she knew very well, Mr. Lumumba had no relationship with Ms. Kercher nor with the Via Della Pergola house. Furthermore, the ability to present an ironclad alibi would have allowed Lumumba to obtain release and subsequently the dropping of charges.

However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an
interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her.


So the Italian case is much stronger than I might have indicated. Knox had incriminated herself by her own words, becoming more than a person of interest, but a formal suspect. It will still IMO come down to whether ECtHR rules she should have had a lawyer present at 5:45 but that will only relate to calunnia, and not, murder.


I don't think it's about a lawyer just at 5:45. Because, for the false accusation case, (and the ECtHR is only looking at that one, not the murder), all the statements were allowed to be used against Amanda Knox, the 1:45, 5:45 and the note she wrote afterwards.

The Italian Supreme Court has said she should have had a lawyer before the 1:45 statement and before she verbally named Lumumba and admitted being at her house. But they are saying that this only applies to the murder case. They are saying that Knox has no protection at all for the false accusation case. She has no right to a lawyer for that one. And since she has no rights, anything she says can be used against her in evidence.

Knox says two things to the police that are important:

1) I was at the crime scene
2) Lumumba committed murder

The Italians believe that Number 1 is connected to the murder case against her and Number 2 is connected to the false accusation case against her. Neither statement is evidence in both crimes. Each statement is evidence of one crime. And they also say it's absolutely correct to treat both crimes differently as far as rights are concerned even though the statements are made together.

But both statements ('I was there' and 'He did it') are first made at a time when the Supreme Court says she should have had a lawyer for the murder case.

Amanda Knox's argument would be that if she had a lawyer before she made her statement in the murder case (Number 1), the lawyer would have told her to be quiet and say nothing. If she had said nothing, she would not have made her statement in the false accusation case, (Number 2), not verbally and not in writing at 1:45, 5:45 or in the note afterwards. She would say that if her rights had been respected as the Italian Supreme Court agrees they should have been, she would not have committed the crime of false accusation.

So, the ECtHR has to decide if her rights, which the Italian court agreed she has but were restricted to the murder case actually apply to the false accusation case too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 12:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Midwichcuckoo wrote:
jamie wrote:
Midwichcuckoo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Midwichcuckoo, while the police may have felt there was evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, with some tub-thumping claims by police in the media they "always suspected her", the court allowed the 1:45 statement but not the 5:45 once RS refused to corroborate her alibi. She definitely was a suspect after that.


Ok, I think I'm starting to understand this. It looks like it's all about the difference between two crimes - first the murder and second, the false accusation. The ECtHR deals only with the false accusation and needs to be asked by Italy to treat the matters separately, I think.

The Supreme Court wouldn't allow the statement of 5:45 to be used against Amanda Knox for the murder, but it would allow her spontaneous note written afterwards against her for the murder (and the 1:45 against others but not her). It said she was a suspect in the murder case at the point Raffaelle Solecito took away her alibi, was therefore entitled to a lawyer and had a right to silence since that right looks like it goes along with the right to a lawyer. Also, because the police are confronting her with her lost alibi and challenging her about text messages, it seems pretty clear she was being interrogated or questioned before she admitted being at her house at the time of the murder and before she accused Lumumba of the killing.

For the false accusation, the Supreme Court says this is a different matter and Italian law can treat it differently. Amanda Knox is to be considered a witness not a suspect in this case. So, all the statements can be used against her. The court says:

"The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness." (thanks to Fast Pete for this)

So, she gets all the rights and protections available in connection with the murder case, but has no protection at all for the false accusation case. Italy, therefore has to convince the ECtHR that this 'splitting' is the right thing to have done. I suppose that depends on the court's previous cases and whether they believe she was hit or had pressure put on her and whether that matters.

It's quite an interesting idea that the Italian Supreme Court has said (I think), what can be summarised as, 'Amanda Knox's questioning for the murder case was not handled correctly because she was entitled to a lawyer before she said she was at the crime scene and had a right to silence but, she was not being questioned as a suspect in the false accusation case and so she didn't have any rights connected to this, happened to commit that crime and was correctly convicted of it.'


Legal point: Sollecito's statement was signed AFTER Knox' one (circa 03:30, to her 01:45), so the claim she should have had a lawyer as soon as Sollecito withdrew her alibi, chronologically, did not kick in during her confession and accusation.


That's not what the Supreme Court said, though. They must have been referring to what Sollecito said verbally (if his written statement was at 03:30) because they said that Amanda Knox was a suspect and had a right to a lawyer before she made her statement.

But the courts also seem to be saying that none of this matters for the false accusation because Knox only has protection for the murder case. They are saying effectively that there is one interrogation for one crime. Knox happens to commit another, different crime during the interrogation and she has no rights for that one, because they weren't investigating that crime, which hadn't happened then. So, you cannot be a suspect in a crime which didn't exist. Even after she named Lumumba, nobody knew she had committed the crime of false accusation, because nobody knew at that time that it was false.



No, there was no formal reference to what RS said until his statement was issued around 3:30. Napoleoni denied she had inforrmed AK RS had withdrawn her alibi. Napoleoni said she told police officers outside in the corridor. In effect, it was a hearsay.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 1:23 pm   Post subject: Re: ECtHR   

Ergon wrote:

So the Italian case is much stronger than I might have indicated. Knox had incriminated herself by her own words, becoming more than a person of interest, but a formal suspect. It will still IMO come down to whether ECtHR rules she should have had a lawyer present at 5:45 but that will only relate to calunnia, and not, murder.


The 05:45 was completely ruled out by Cassation as Knox had suspect status by then, so there'd be nothing for Strasbourg to remedy.

The 01:45 was useable contra alios and for calunnia, as a witness statement. Knox then became a suspect because the accusation against Lumumba placed her at the scene, but the statement could still not be used for trial on the murder charge.

The memoriale was fully useable on both counts because it was offered completely on Knox's initiative.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Midwichcuckoo


Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 9:26 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Midwichcuckoo wrote:
jamie wrote:
Midwichcuckoo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Midwichcuckoo, while the police may have felt there was evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, with some tub-thumping claims by police in the media they "always suspected her", the court allowed the 1:45 statement but not the 5:45 once RS refused to corroborate her alibi. She definitely was a suspect after that.


Ok, I think I'm starting to understand this. It looks like it's all about the difference between two crimes - first the murder and second, the false accusation. The ECtHR deals only with the false accusation and needs to be asked by Italy to treat the matters separately, I think.

The Supreme Court wouldn't allow the statement of 5:45 to be used against Amanda Knox for the murder, but it would allow her spontaneous note written afterwards against her for the murder (and the 1:45 against others but not her). It said she was a suspect in the murder case at the point Raffaelle Solecito took away her alibi, was therefore entitled to a lawyer and had a right to silence since that right looks like it goes along with the right to a lawyer. Also, because the police are confronting her with her lost alibi and challenging her about text messages, it seems pretty clear she was being interrogated or questioned before she admitted being at her house at the time of the murder and before she accused Lumumba of the killing.

For the false accusation, the Supreme Court says this is a different matter and Italian law can treat it differently. Amanda Knox is to be considered a witness not a suspect in this case. So, all the statements can be used against her. The court says:

"The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness." (thanks to Fast Pete for this)

So, she gets all the rights and protections available in connection with the murder case, but has no protection at all for the false accusation case. Italy, therefore has to convince the ECtHR that this 'splitting' is the right thing to have done. I suppose that depends on the court's previous cases and whether they believe she was hit or had pressure put on her and whether that matters.

It's quite an interesting idea that the Italian Supreme Court has said (I think), what can be summarised as, 'Amanda Knox's questioning for the murder case was not handled correctly because she was entitled to a lawyer before she said she was at the crime scene and had a right to silence but, she was not being questioned as a suspect in the false accusation case and so she didn't have any rights connected to this, happened to commit that crime and was correctly convicted of it.'


Legal point: Sollecito's statement was signed AFTER Knox' one (circa 03:30, to her 01:45), so the claim she should have had a lawyer as soon as Sollecito withdrew her alibi, chronologically, did not kick in during her confession and accusation.


That's not what the Supreme Court said, though. They must have been referring to what Sollecito said verbally (if his written statement was at 03:30) because they said that Amanda Knox was a suspect and had a right to a lawyer before she made her statement.

But the courts also seem to be saying that none of this matters for the false accusation because Knox only has protection for the murder case. They are saying effectively that there is one interrogation for one crime. Knox happens to commit another, different crime during the interrogation and she has no rights for that one, because they weren't investigating that crime, which hadn't happened then. So, you cannot be a suspect in a crime which didn't exist. Even after she named Lumumba, nobody knew she had committed the crime of false accusation, because nobody knew at that time that it was false.



No, there was no formal reference to what RS said until his statement was issued around 3:30. Napoleoni denied she had inforrmed AK RS had withdrawn her alibi. Napoleoni said she told police officers outside in the corridor. In effect, it was a hearsay.


But this is what the Supreme Court said from Ergon's link:

The Admissibility of the Statements

"The Supreme Court would rule that the original statements would not be admissible. The Supreme Court concluded that Knox was a suspect before she made those statements and that she should have been treated as a suspect as soon as Raffaele stopped corroborating the alibi and admitted to lying at Amanda's request. Amanda never asked for a lawyer[18] but under Italian law the police should have prompted her to get one. These statements would be admissible against Amanda Knox for her charges of falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba but not against Knox for the murder. The spontaneous statement made by Knox out of her own choosing would be admissible."

The Supreme Court must be referring to an earlier time than 03:30 because Amanda Knox's statement was at 1:45. In saying 'as soon as Raffaele stopped corroborating the alibi' was not 03:30 when his statement was written. It was when he took away the alibi verbally or it doesn't make any sense.

Also, I looked up the testimony at the same website (translated to English) and found a reference from the translator, Anna Donnino about this:

CDV: Still on translating these questions, do you remember if one of the questions concerned the fact that Raffaele Sollecito had made declarations different from those with respect to Amanda’s?
AD: This came to be acknowledged, they came to be said, if I’m not mistaken, although I have to repeat a great deal of time has passed by since then so the details of the questions I’m not able to refer to with the requisite precision.
CDV: Only the main thrust.
AD: Yes, maybe something was said to her about that.
CDV: That…
AD: That Raffaele was not standing by her, he was saying things differently with respect to hers

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/A ... y_(English)

But I think , as I said, the issue is that the Italians are saying that AK is treated only as a witness for the false accusation, which is why, even as a suspect in the murder, they were allowed to use the statements against her despite the fact she didn't have a lawyer. She was only entitled to a lawyer for the murder - the crime she was suspected of. She wasn't suspected of the false accusation, so she's only a witness for that. But they do allow the note she wrote after for both the murder and the false accusation, because it was entirely voluntary. She just wrote it up herself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Midwichcuckoo


Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 9:26 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: ECtHR   

hugo wrote:
Ergon wrote:

So the Italian case is much stronger than I might have indicated. Knox had incriminated herself by her own words, becoming more than a person of interest, but a formal suspect. It will still IMO come down to whether ECtHR rules she should have had a lawyer present at 5:45 but that will only relate to calunnia, and not, murder.


The 05:45 was completely ruled out by Cassation as Knox had suspect status by then, so there'd be nothing for Strasbourg to remedy.

The 01:45 was useable contra alios and for calunnia, as a witness statement. Knox then became a suspect because the accusation against Lumumba placed her at the scene, but the statement could still not be used for trial on the murder charge.

The memoriale was fully useable on both counts because it was offered completely on Knox's initiative.


There seem to be lots of references to both the 1:45 and 5:45 statements as well as the memoriale in the court records including in testimony, for example in the questioning of Anna Donnino. The judge who convicted Amanda Knox for false accusation and sentenced her to three years imprisonment, increasing her previous sentence, (Hellmann) said this in his report, which I found at a different website:


The “spontaneous” statements made by Amanda Knox on November 6, as well as the note [memoriale] subsequently written by her, have been introduced into the trial record.

This Corte di Assise di Appello, while confirming the procedural ruling [ordinanza] of the first-level Corte di Assise on this point, has nevertheless specified that, while they are usable with respect to the crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, they cannot be usable with respect to the other crimes against Meredith Kercher to the extent that, as the Corte di Cassazione has also confirmed (ruling no. 990/08, dated 4-01-2008), they are subject to absolute nullification in this regard [sono affetti, sotto questo profilo, da nullità assoluta], as having been given in the absence of an attorney by a person who had already assumed the role of a suspect [indagata].

The evidence against the current defendants with regard to the crime of murder aggravated by sexual violence (as well as the other crimes connected to these) cannot, therefore, include these “spontaneous” statements, but only, possibly [in ipotesi], the note written afterward.

https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/co ... n/calumny/

So, again, it seems like Hellmann is saying what I thought the Supreme Court was saying, that AK was a suspect before 1:45 in the murder and should have had a lawyer, but not for the false accusation or callumny. So, he can use the statements, even though she didn't have a lawyer, to convict her. But, in fact, reading the two statements (1:45 and 5:45) it doesn't look as if the 5:45 statement says anything more than the 1:45 statement. Knox names Lumumba in the 1:45 statement as the murderer and so she clearly falsely accuses him then. Therefore, this is what the ECtHR is being asked to decide - that is, whether AK was entitled to a lawyer not just for the murder interrogation but for the callumny issues. They also have to decide if that includes the time throughout the period leading up to and including the note she handed the police and if she was hit.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline olleosnep


Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:03 pm

Posts: 117

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 1:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Regarding the Italian Supreme Court Cassazione ruling on the statements, it's best to go to the source document:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/d ... l-Knox.pdf

On page 6-7 of the document, it reads as follows (quickly and transliterally rendered):

"2. With reference to the second defensive censure the Court observes that the probatory/evidence-bearing declarations are characterized by different regimes of useability under the subjective profile/case. In the case in which these (statements) come from persons against which already existed evidences relevant to the same crime, or more specifically to a crime connected or related with that attribute to the third the same (statements) cannot be utilized, not only contra se but also in connection with codefendants of the same crime (or of defendants of crimes connected or related).

The regime of unuseability absolute from which the article 62 second comma criminal code is, instead, to be excluded in the hypothesis in which the declarant is called to respond, in the same or other proceeding, for a crime or crimes attributed to others, which do not have any connection legal/proceeding with that for which is proceeds, respect to which these (statements) assume the qualification of testimony.

In fact, while in the first case, by force of the intimate connection and interdependence between the act itself and that others arises the necessity to guarantee also (page 7) the right to silence of the declarant, in the second case, instead, the position of extraneousness and of indifference of the declarant (with) respect to the facts of cause renders them immune to future instrumentalizations operated on the parts of the inquiring entities (Cassazione, Section Unified, 13 February 1992, Carpanelli)

On the basis/tail of these principles, the declarations rendering by Amanda Marie Knox at the hour of 01:45 of November 6, 2007, at the outcome of which the deposition was suspended and the girl was placed at the disposition of the judicial Authority (my note, exactly as indicated in the deposition document itself) proceeding, arising evidences against her, they are useable only conta alios, while the “spontaneous declarations” of the hour of 5:54 (5:45) are not useable neither against her nor against other subjects accused of acting together in the same crime, because they were rendered without the defensive guarantees on the part of a person who had already formally assumed the vestige/dress/contour of a defendant.

On the contrary, the memo written in English language by Knox and translated into Italian is fully useable, according to the sense of article 237 criminal code, because it is a document coming from the defendant, who was the spontaneous material author for a defensive cause. The disposition under examination allows to attribute probatory relevance to the document not only because of its existence and for its representative content, but also by force of the particular connection which ties it to the defendant (or accused), in this way illuminating the syndicate(?)/(authority) of admissibility that the judge is obliged to operate."

This is the memo being referenced:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/d ... -memo1.pdf
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 7:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello to everyone, is it really so, that Knox got suspect at the moment, Sollecito withdrew her alibi? What would had happen if she had just said, Sollecito lies and repeat again, she was at his house all night. Instead she got her break down. Would she have got also a suspect in this case? How could the police know that she would accept Sollecito's withdrawl of her alibi?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rudy Guede seems to be on a holiday from prison at the moment, due back on Friday sometime. Several Italian etc. newspapers reporting this. Some English-speaking ones are claiming that AK slammed the decision to give him this leave but Italian ones that I've seen have only had comments by RS.

Here's an excerpt - Google Translate - no time for anything else right now - from one Italian source:

Quote:
Make further requests for permission

Guede will leave prison on Wednesday to travel to a cooperative engaged in the recovery of the inmates where he will stay until time to go back to jail. The measure was adopted with the favorable opinion of the prison director "Mammagialla" of Viterbo, Teresa Mascolo. "We waited four hours and we have granted 36 - explains the spokesman Daniele Camilli (Rudy Guede can not talk to the press without a special permit) -. It 'a good signal. Henceforth Guede will undoubtedly other permission requests. " Guede had asked for the permit prize - through the lawyer Nicodemo Gentile who has defended with Walter Biscotti - at Viterbo parole but has rejected the request considering that he had not made a critical review of the facts that have involved. Hence the appeal to the supervisory court in Rome in a sort of appeal.


http://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca ... resh_ce-cp
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here is the story from the NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/24/meredith-k ... SocialFlow

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jhansigirl wrote:


They also claim in NY Post that AK commented saying "“I’m upset by the fact that Guede has never shown any remorse and hope that whoever granted him permission (to take temporary release) did so only as part of a social-reintegration program,” she told La Republica."

But when you go to check La Repubblica there's only Raff saying this (with the help of GT again) but maybe AK used exactly the same words :) :

GT Translation wrote:
Frosty the comment Raffaele Sollecito, the former boyfriend of Amanda Knox: "I regret that Rudy Guede has never regretted it and I hope that those who granted him permission he did it in a social reintegration." Sollecito says he does not expect new truths. "Rudy has always told lies and even would say now."


La Repubblica wrote:
Gelido il commento di Raffaele Sollecito, l'ex fidanzato di Amanda Knox: "Mi rammarica che Rudy Guede non si sia mai pentito e mi auguro che chi gli ha concesso il permesso lo abbia fatto in un percorso di reinserimento sociale". Sollecito dice di non attendersi nuove verità. "Rudy ha sempre detto menzogne e le direbbe anche ora".


http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2016/0 ... 140441525/
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 4:09 pm   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE HALFWAY HOUSE LEAVE   

Permission for leave now put on hold Corriere Della Sera reports the Viterbo court that refused permission for him to leave objected to the Rome court's permission by indicating the receiving center did not have adequate meals facilities for him huh-)

Very opera buffo.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 4:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yes indeed, it seems to have been "postponed due to bureaucratic logistical reasons" and "Guede took the news calmly" according to his current lawyer.

http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 09243.html
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 4:45 pm   Post subject: ECtHR Test for 'Suspect'/ ECtHR Test for 'Custody'   

One of the last 8 old men still obsessively blogging for Knox at ISF is fantasizing that Hugo and I will be "devastated" if the ECtHR sides with Knox LOL

I can't speak for Hugo, of course, but it seems there are some SERIOUS reading comprehension problems at work among the FOA diehards, so I'll try to be succinct: REGARDLESS of which way the Court comes down, I wont be "devastated", I'll be ENLIGHTENED.

Unlike the Last 8 Knox Fans, I'm well aware of the fact that I was not in Perugia in 2007 and, as a result, cannot claim to have absolute certainty as to what actually transpired in either the cottage or the police station, so I'm not 'hoping' for any particular outcome.

The only thing I'm hoping for is a result that will help the TRUTH to emerge, whatever it might be.

If Knox is truly innocent but was coerced by the police into making an incriminating statement, then a half million Euro doesn't even BEGIN to adequately compensate her for the damage done in the course of prosecuting her.

If, on the other hand, she wasn't coerced by the police and, in accord with the translations of the Supreme Court's judgment, was present during the murder, then I wouldn't blame the Kerchers for wanting to take matters into their own hands at this point.

Alas, no one seems able to answer my question, so, as hope springs eternal, I'll try once again:

At what point, exactly, does someone in Italy become a suspect entitled to both a 'caution' AND (at state expense) the appointment of a lawyer of their choosing:

A) Per the FOA lay people: the moment any cop, no matter how unreasonable/ incompetent/ corrupt/ racist/ sexist/ dumb/ mentally ill/ paranoid/ drunk/ etc., has the faintest inkling of a bare suspicion about Citizen X based on nothing more than a subjective/ personal/ idiosyncratic feeling or hunch;

B) Per the UK, Code C, PACE Act (1984): the moment any cop has access to reliable information/ facts that would cause a REASONABLE person to SUSPECT it LIKELY that Citizen X has committed a particular CRIME; OR

C) Per the Good Ol' US of A: the moment Citizen X is ARRESTED on the basis of 'PROBABLE CAUSE' (a higher standard of proof than 'reasonable suspicion'), or taken into CUSTODY (per the SCOTUS in Thompson v. Keohane, Warden, et al.(1996) the TEST FOR CUSTODY = "...[W]ould a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave"?)
?????????????????????????

___________________________________________________
If the answer is A:

Police will not be able to investigate and control crime.

For example, imagine the absurdity of undercover cops having to break cover to inform a 'suspected' drug dealer that they are not really buyers but cops and that, before he does the drug deal that will establish probable cause for his arrest, he has the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer! (I'll bet that Screechy Williams is the only one who doesn't know what would happen next! LOL)
____________________________________________________
If the answer is B:

As the Nov. 5/6 interview began, what reliable information/ facts did the police have that would cause a REASONABLE person to suspect it LIKELY that Knox committed a CRIME???

(And what CRIME, exactly, was it supposed to be??? Murder?!)

_______________________________________________________
If the answer is C:

As the Nov. 5/6 interview began, why would Knox be construed as 'in CUSTODY' if Casey Anthony wasn't considered to be 'in CUSTODY' during ANY of the interviews leading to her arrest (not in custody = no Miranda warning required to establish the admissibility of her lies to police = convicted of providing false information to law enforcement).

Consider how the "four-factor" CUSTODY analysis set out by the Supreme Court of Florida (in Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999)) would apply to Knox if this had gone down in FLA instead of ITL:

Hidden Content: show
Anyone familiar with the fact pattern in the Casey Anthony case can get a feel for how this test is applied.

In Antony's state (Florida) the courts have adopted a "four-factor" CUSTODY analysis (per the Supreme Court of Florida in Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999)) that takes into account:

"...
(1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning;

(2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation;

(3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt;

(4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning."

The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida applied this test to reject Casey Anthony's argument that she was in CUSTODY before she made incriminating statements to police officers and should, therefore, have been given a Miranda warning before she made these statements.

In respect of the 4 factor analysis, the District Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err when applying the test thusly:

1) the police "did not summon" Casey;

2) the purpose of the interview "was to obtain information about ... the suspected kidnapper";

3) Casey was "not confront[ed] ... with any inculpatory evidence", "the focus of the conversation was finding [the missing toddler]"; &

4) Casey was "freely and voluntarily giving" police information.

Accordingly, the DCA ruled that, in light of the "totality of the circumstances", Casey was NOT in CUSTODY before or during the time that she made her incriminating statments to police despite the fact she was, at one point, HANDCUFFED IN THE BACK OF A POLICE CRUISER*.

Now, go to TJMK and read the translations of the sworn testimony of the police officers and the interpreter and ask yourself whether, under their description of the circumstances, Konx was in CUSTODY on the evening of Nov. 5.

1) the police did not summon her to the station;

2) the purpose of the interview was to obtain information that could lead to Meredith's killer (Can you write up a list of names for us? Do you have contact info in your phone? What do you know about the short basketball player?);

3) Konx was not confronted with any evidence of her guilt (they had none), the focus was on finding the (presumably male) killer;

4) Konx was "freely and voluntarily" giving police information (and, in each of the 3 preceding days, was free to leave the station - why would she see the Monday evening interview as being any different?)

_______________________________________________

None of the FOA dullards seem to understand that all of this talk about the right to silence/ the right to counsel concerns, at base, the ADMISSIBILITY of incriminating statements - they seem to think it has to do with somehow 'physically protecting' Knox from big bad police officers, or denying her some form of complex legal assistance (telling a client to "STFU" is as simple and quick as it gets - even anglo could do it with his one year diploma). And they ALWAYS gloss right over the fact that her statements are INCRIMINATING (unless they are not voluntary).

I'm with (the not so dearly departed) Justice Scalia insofar as I find it hard to believe that anyone over the age of, say, 12 is unaware of the fact that, apart perhaps from jurisdictions like North Korea, they have the "right to remain silent" and the "right to a lawyer" when questioned/accused by police.

That said, the failure of the police to record the Nov. 5/6 interview has opened the door for at least one intelligent, very well-educated person (erasmus44), to doubt the testimony of the police and, therefore, the prosecution's case.

While I'm not prepared to PRESUME police misconduct, particularly where all 3 accused have been caught lying, I did think a reliable recording might emerge in the context of the defamation action by police, having been suppressed in the murder case for some uniquely Italian legal reason - prejudicial effect deemed to outweigh probative value, or some such. The lack of a reliable recording is a pretty major torpedo to the state's case, IMHO, as are the recently published studies proving that tertiary transfer of touch DNA can, in fact, occur (albeit not often, even under ideal conditions in a lab).

(I'll leave to another time the question of how, on Earth, these studies could have informed a legal process that wrapped up before they were even published.)

Alas, for me, the question remains: As I look at these photos, and consider their context, am I looking at something unspeakably sinister or just some form of mild social retardation???

Image

Guede knows.

But the sick **** isn't telling. And for this they show him the mercy of a reduced sentence and a free Arts degree?!

If he rapes and kills again, will Italy pay for his Masters?!!!


Last edited by Jackie on Wed May 25, 2016 10:12 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

olleosnep wrote:
Regarding the Italian Supreme Court Cassazione ruling on the statements, it's best to go to the source document:



Yes, and you'll notice that, in the Supreme Court's view, Knox was only a person under investigation ('suspect') after the end of the 01:45. That is why the 01:45 was useable contra alios (i.e. against Patrick Lumumba) on the murder charge, but not against Knox, because a witness can't incriminate herself in the matter under investigation. Unstated but understood is that, being useable against Lumumba but being false, the 01:45 is evidence against Knox in the calunnia case, although it is difficult to refer to in court because Knox's placing herself at the scene of the crime cannot be mentioned.

The 05:45 is completely unuseable because Knox is now a suspect and it's a suspect interview carried out 'without the proper legal safeguards'. The prosecutor thought it would qualify for the exemption given to 'spontaneous declarations', but the court disagreed.

The court did, however, allow the exemption for the 'memoriale', because this was so obviously and insistently given at Knox's wish without prompting. The 'memoriale' was useable both for the calunnia case and the murder case.

As for what a proper suspect interview looks like, that would be the December interview in Capanne. Knox volunteered for it, she had time to prepare, counsel were present, the interview was conducted by the prosecutor (as it has to be unless he delegates the task to the judicial police) and Knox could and did end the questioning on legal advice when she felt like it. That's a suspect interview. Italian police cannot question suspects just by reading their rights and bringing in a lawyer the way British or American police can.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: ECtHR Test for 'Suspect'/ ECtHR Test for 'Custody'   

Jackie wrote:
One of the last 8 old men still obsessively blogging for Knox at ISF is fantasizing that Hugo and I will be "devastated" if the ECtHR sides with Knox LOL


Don't know about you, Jackie, but I take the view that the courts will do what the courts will do, and you never know what they will do, because they're not your friends, and they're not God, and they're often wrong anyway.


Quote:
Alas, no one seems able to answer my question, so, as hope springs eternal, I'll try once again:

At what point, exactly, does someone in Italy become a suspect entitled to both a 'caution' AND (at state expense) the appointment of a lawyer of their choosing:


In Knox's case, according the Supreme Court, that point was only reached at the end of the 01:45, when Knox signed a statement placing her at the crime scene during the murder. She then became a person under investigation (indagata), so the 05:45 statement was unuseable because the usual Italian protections for a suspect (access to counsel, time to prepare, volunteering for or agreeing to the interview, knowledge of the right to end the interview at any time) hadn't been applied. The prosecutor wasn't entirely wrong, though: he thought that the code's exemption for a 'spontaneous declaration' would apply, and although it didn't apply to the 05:45, in the Supreme Court's view, it did apply to Knox's handwritten 'memoriale', submitted to police at Knox's firm insistence that afternoon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Jackie wrote:
Alas, for me, the question remains: As I look at these photos, and consider their context, am I looking at something unspeakably sinister or just some form of mild social retardation???


Well Jackie, according to Sollecito (in his latest interview), he cried when he got those items (his computer, cell phone, pocket knife) back from the Questura. I can only see a happy, smiling face in those photos, though.

Here is the quote:

Raffaele Sollecito wrote:
Looking back, a mistake you wouldn’t want to repeat?

"I was a boy [back then], hard to deny. When months ago I recovered my confiscated computer, I cried. I have found my life again at the time. There was nothing wrong. But it was buried, raped, broken. Now I start with enthusiasm and desire to move forward, but the shadow of everything always accompanies me."


Notice how he speaks of his life in terms that, actually, are more applicable to what Meredith had suffered? I have noticed that he has used this kind of expression very often in his numerous interviews. It's just strange that he says that his life has been "raped". There must be something in his guilty unconscious that prompts him to use this word that is inappropriate in this context, don't you think?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here is the full text of his May 21 interview following the presentation of his start-up in Milan (published by Quotidiano.net):

May 21, 2016

Raffaele Sollecito and the memory of Meredith. "That death haunts me"
By Marinella Rossi

"They all recognize Raffaele Sollecito, unfortunately I am a news item which has been at the top of tv listings for years, but I am mainly a software engineer who develops an application for commemorating the dead at a distance". He does it with a start up somewhere between a social network and e-commerce.

This idea of commemorating the dead has to do with Meredith?

"No, the death of Meredith is not related to my life but to a judicial error. The idea revolves around my mother and my passion for computers. And when at age 22, in 2005, my mother passed away, I couldn't imagine that I wouldn't be able to go and visit her grave for so long. In prison, in 2009, I started to think about how to keep in touch [literally: "make contact"] with her, even when sitting on a chair. And this might also apply to others who live far from their dead (loved ones)."

It has nothing to do with Meredith, but Meredith is dead, and her death has been connected to you for so long.

"I knew Meredith only as Amanda’s roommate. A good girl, with quintessentially English education, circumspect and reserved, only English friends. In all these years I have felt a strong empathy for her family because their loved one was gone, being above negative thoughts despite misdirection by investigators."

Looking back, a mistake you wouldn’t want to repeat?

"I was a boy [back then], hard to deny. When months ago I recovered my confiscated computer, I cried. I found my life again at the time. There was nothing wrong. But it was buried, raped, broken. Now I start with enthusiasm and desire to move forward, but the shadow of everything always accompanies me."

But do you suspect, now that you are a man, that drug use flattened out and limited [your?] consciousness?

"I consider drugs a childish attempt not to face reality. That evening, when Meredith was killed, I smoked just one joint."

Who was Amanda?

“A girl of twenty, dreamy, positive, Alice in Wonderland. She liked playing with reality.”

You loved her?

"Did I love her? I was with her for five days. She was beautiful. And I was excited, infatuated, thinking more of what could be rather than of what was there."

Does it pain you more that Meredith is dead or that you spent four years in prison?

'Provocative question. I'm very sorry that Meredith is no longer here (with us). And that I was innocent in prison."


http://www.quotidiano.net/raffaele-sollecito-1.2180710
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And here are Sollecito's and Knox's lawyers' reaction(s) to ECHR's admission of Knox's appeal for preliminary review :

May 18, 2016

Amanda Knox; here is why she is suing Italy

The American girl, acquitted for the murder of Meredith Kercher, has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights

...Now the Italian Government will have until 17 September to provide its assessments to the Court which will then make its decision. Today the Deputy Prosecutor General of Perugia, Giuliano Mignini, the magistrate who led the investigation of the murder of Meredith Kercher, declined to comment on developments in Strasbourg. For the lawyer Ghirga, Knox’s interrogation is the cornerstone of the whole affair. "You can't talk about history satisfaction in a story like this where there is so much suffering but the demands of the defense of Amanda Knox are finding satisfaction' - said another [Knox] lawyer, Dalla Vedova.

"It is time for people to wake up on this matter," was the reaction of Raffaele Sollecito. "There have been abuses - he added - that have never had media coverage. Luckily there are judges who give due importance to what for us 'was a nightmare."


PANORAMA

May 18, 2016

Raffaele Sollecito: "Me and Amanda Knox demonized. Abuses never reported by the media"
By Alessandro Guerra

After the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to accept a preliminary appeal against Italy by Amanda Knox, comes the reaction of Raffaele Sollecito, another star of the murder of Meredith Kercher trial story, a story that ended with acquittal of both Knox and Sollecito.

"It is time that people begin to open their eyes to this affair," said Sollecito to ANSA. "Amanda was interrogated for 15 hours without a lawyer and an official interpreter. There were abuses never reported by the media, and luckily there are judges who give due importance to what happened."

Sollecito added: 'The media has demonized us. Giving a description of the two people who have never really existed and are completely unrelated to the death of that poor girl. I never tire of denouncing what happened'.


CRIMEBLOG
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 1:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Quote:
"The appellant accepted that if a police officer arrived at the scene of a crime and asked what had happened, and a person there present at once confessed, s 8 of the Act could not apply, because the person was not, and ought not reasonably to have been, suspected. The same was true where a police officer picked up a telephone and a voice at the other end confessed to a crime. The appellant thus accepted that the point before which video-recording was unnecessary was the period leading up to the time when the police decided, or ought reasonably to have decided, that the maker of the statement was a suspect. " – Kelly v R, High Court of Australia (10 Mar 2004), [2004] HCA 12at [44].
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Would anyone familiar with Italian judicial affairs that made the news, or knowledge of prosecutors, have any information on a prosecutor called Alfredo Ormanni, who was done for embezzlement, I think? He was prosecutor for Torre Anunnziata. If so, I'd be very much obliged, thanks. ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

According to the Bard on .org, Rocco Sollecito got whacked in a power struggle. Mob war may loom. wtf)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 11:14 pm   Post subject: ROCCO SOLLECITO WHACKED   

Yep. http://www.cjad.com/cjad-news-community/2016/05/27/mob-hit-shows-montreal-mafia-is-still-in-turmoil-expert
Quote:
"I think there's a new generation of mobsters who are definitely challenging the power of the Rizzuto crime family", said Nicaso.

"It's very difficult to identify a person at the present time capable to lead the Rizzuto crime family and to rebuild the political connection exposed during the Charbonneau commisson", added Nicaso.

Sollecito's murder comes after his son, Stefano, was arrested in November in a major drug sweep and accused of being an influential leader of the Montreal Mafia.

Stefano Sollecito was arrested along with Leonardo Rizzuto, son of Vito Rizzuto.


There's also an inter family war going on between Ontario and Quebec gangs. Mostly wise guys getting whacked.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2016 12:14 am   Post subject: ALFREDO ORMANNI PEDOPHILE VIDEOS   

corpusvile wrote:
Would anyone familiar with Italian judicial affairs that made the news, or knowledge of prosecutors, have any information on a prosecutor called Alfredo Ormanni, who was done for embezzlement, I think? He was prosecutor for Torre Anunnziata. If so, I'd be very much obliged, thanks. ;)

Lots of info in the public domain about Alfredo Ormanni corpusvile.
Quote:
Paedophile videos stun Italians
Philip Willan in Rome
Friday 29 September 2000

Italian police have discovered a massive international paedophile network selling violent child-pornography videos to clients in Italy, the US and Germany.
Eight Italians have been arrested and 490 warned that they are under investigation, in a scandal that has shocked and outraged the country. Police are reportedly trying to identify 5,000 people who are suspected of attempting to purchase the videos, some of which appear to contain images of children being tortured and murdered.

The tapes, which were made in Russia, have allegedly generated revenues of £410m for their makers.

And Mako News
Quote:
1491 On Child Porn Charges
ROME: An Italian prosecutor has charged 1491 Italians and foreign nationals with offering or downloading child pornography on the Internet.
Alfredo Ormanni ordered 831 Italians to stand trial and called for 660 foreigners to be found and sent to Italy to answer charges linked to a paedophile ring, based in Russia, uncovered a month ago.

Adelaide Advertiser (30-10-2000)

Positano NewsThe investigation came to an end as the prosecutor and staff at the procura for Torre Annunziata were charged and sentenced for falsifying expense reports, money laundering, and accepting bribes from his boss Domenico Vernola.
Quote:
Scandalo del Tribunale di Torre Annunziata:condannati Ormanni, Vernola e altri 19

Maxi stangata del Tribunale di Roma nei confronti dell'ex procuratore capo e del famoso "cancelliere d'oro"

di ROSARIA FEDERICOROMA/TORRE ANNUNZIATA -

Viaggi, mandati di pagamento fasulli, rimborsi per missioni investigative all’estero, auto di lusso e festini in rinomati ristoranti: dodici anni dopo lo scandalo e l’arresto del super cancelliere Domenico Vernola e la sospensione del capo della Procura di Torre Annunziata, Alfredo Ormanni, arriva la sentenza di primo grado per 26 imputati. Ventuno condanne pesantissime, in parte mitigate da indulto e prescrizione, cinque assoluzioni per il lento e corrosivo incedere del tempo trascorso. Disattese le blande richieste del pubblico ministero, i giudici del Tribunale di Roma che dal 2010 hanno iniziato il processo dopo numerosi stop, hanno inflitto 91 anni di carcere agli imputati e la pena accessoria del licenziamento per i dipendenti pubblici.

No idea whether those charges are true or not but it seems not very many people named in the pedophile ring got arrested.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 2:02 am   Post subject: ROCCO SOLLECITO   

For background on the recent assassination of Rocco Sollecito: he was the consigliere, some thought the real power behind the Montreal Rizzuto Family.
Quote:
The assassination of Nicolo "Nick" Rizzuto, 86, inside his Montreal mansion is thought to be the coup de grâce against the once-mighty crime family that, for 30 years, dominated Montreal's underworld. Rizzuto was executed at sundown, Nov. 10, 2010 in front of his wife and daughter by a sniper bullet shot from outside the home.

"With the death of its historical patriarch, the clan from Sicily has suffered a blow that could prove fatal," Italy's Ansa agency reported.

They were affiliated with the Bonnano crime family for helping murder some disloyal captains. With blowback, the series of murders listed here seriously depleted the Rizzuto influence and construction contract scandals brought legal pressure on them as well. It looked like they would survive with Rocco Sollecito managing the family. With him gone it appears they might lose their once preeminent position in Canada.

Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova represented them in the negotiations of the Straits of Messina Bridge Project despite concerns about "the project being taken over by the largest Mafia organizations in America" but the contract was cancelled once Berlusconi lost power.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 2:42 pm   Post subject: STRAITS OF MESSINA BRIDGE PROJECT   

http://www.uonna.it/ponte-sullo-stretto-canadian-connection.htm
Quote:
Contemporaneamente l’ingegnere italo-canadese allestiva un team di professionisti internazionali che lo affiancavano nella gestione degli aspetti economici e finanziari dell’operazione. Veniva nominato consulente legale il noto avvocato romano Carlo Della Vedova, mentre i contatti con i potenziali finanziatori esteri venivano affidati al faccendiere cingalese Sivalingam Sivabavanandan. Per stringere relazioni e alleanze con ministri, sottosegretari e imprenditoria capitolina, Zappia otteneva la collaborazione di un ex attore televisivo di origini agrigentine, Libertino Parisi, noto al grande pubblico per aver fatto per anni l’edicolante nella trasmissione Rai I fatti vostri.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 4:41 pm   Post subject: RE: STRAITS OF MESSINA BRIDGE PROJECT   

Good link, corpusvile.
"In Puglia the Rizzuto would retain strong links with the group led by Rocco Sollecito, better known as "Sauce" (sausage), already involved in suspicious stock transactions of Canadian family. In 2000 Rocco Sollecito was spotted in Toronto with don Vito and other known affected at the funeral of an alleged member of the mafia murder victim. Rocco Sollecito, Stephen's father also finished under arrest in April 2001 following an investigation into a criminal network that operated in Ontario bookmaking anywhere on football and horse racing. On that occasion the Canadian authorities suggested that the head of the business there was the usual Vito Rizzuto."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: ROCCO SOLLECITO   

Ergon wrote:
For background on the recent assassination of Rocco Sollecito: he was the consigliere, some thought the real power behind the Montreal Rizzuto Family.
Quote:
The assassination of Nicolo "Nick" Rizzuto, 86, inside his Montreal mansion is thought to be the coup de grâce against the once-mighty crime family that, for 30 years, dominated Montreal's underworld. Rizzuto was executed at sundown, Nov. 10, 2010 in front of his wife and daughter by a sniper bullet shot from outside the home.

"With the death of its historical patriarch, the clan from Sicily has suffered a blow that could prove fatal," Italy's Ansa agency reported.

They were affiliated with the Bonnano crime family for helping murder some disloyal captains. With blowback, the series of murders listed here seriously depleted the Rizzuto influence and construction contract scandals brought legal pressure on them as well. It looked like they would survive with Rocco Sollecito managing the family. With him gone it appears they might lose their once preeminent position in Canada.

Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova represented them in the negotiations of the Straits of Messina Bridge Project despite concerns about "the project being taken over by the largest Mafia organizations in America" but the contract was cancelled once Berlusconi lost power.


All five members of Vito Rizzuto's syndicate in the Messina Bridge bid -- the object being to launder many billions of mafia drug money through the bridge contract -- were Carlo dalla Vedova's clients. All had arrest warrants issued against them by a Roman judge. The only reason Vito himself wasn't arrested by the Italians was that the Americans already wanted him for complicity in a triple murder in New York, for which he served half of an eight-stretch in Florence Supermax, Colorado. (Americans outraged at Guede's lenient sentence for complicity in murder please note.)

Rocco Sollecito of Bari was, of course, Vito's consigliere. He tended to spend about half his time back in his Italian hometown, not in Montreal, and his fortune is believed to be invested in real estate in Bari. When the RCMP wanted him for racketeering a few years ago, the Italian police found him in Bari by their usual method of phone-tapping. In one of the intercepts he was talking to a colleague in Canada about the Montreal gang war that Vito had disastrously initiated (apparently because the Rizzuto family had paid the rival gang $1m towards a cocaine shipment that the US Customs intercepted and the rival gang wouldn't give a refund). They talked about a particular member of the rival gang and Rocco said, 'Shame if the guy got whacked right outside his house.' And a few days later, the man was shot dead, in his car, right outside his house. So, no tears for Rocco, really.

It's true that the contact details of one of Carlo dalla Vedova's relatives in the dalla Vedova 'studio legale', though not Carlo himself, were on the US Embassy's list in 2007. But I doubt it's an accident that Knox's family hired that particular Sollecito-connected lawyer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:59 am   Post subject: MUHAMMAD ALI, RIP   

RIP Muhammad Ali


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:26 pm   Post subject: MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI CASE FILES   

Not only are the FOA lifting case files from the Wiki they make assumptions how we got them.

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

Post by MichaelB » Wed May 25, 2016 6:18 pm

Ergon (WeatherWhisperer) got all got these docs and files from the Kerchers via Maresca. He's practically the Kercher family spokesman. Yummi said on ISF it all comes from Maresca.

Nope. Nope. Nope. And, Nope.

And instead of guessing about our 'sources', they might ask why the defense selectively released files to them? No wonder their wiki is an amateurish paste job.

They can also address their shortcomings in archiving, collation, and translation. We put together a great team. They didn't. Amateurville all the way and all they can do is list people's addresses and places of employment, harass Meredith Kercher's family, and post pictures of her naked body.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

MichaelB supports Lyn Duncan's actions on twitter MichaelB's opinions carry no weight. Does he hold some position of importance in the IIP group? If so Bruce should do a better job in his Ground Report comment censorship.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:32 pm   Post subject: FOA HARASSMENT   

malvern wrote:
MichaelB supports Lyn Duncan's actions on twitter MichaelB's opinions carry no weight. Does he hold some position of importance in the IIP group? If so Bruce should do a better job in his Ground Report comment censorship.


Hi, malvern. MichaelB's opinions don't carry weight, but his actions, certainly do. Aside from harassing the Kerchers he has also posted individual's addresses, family pictures, and other photographs lifted from social media on Bruce Fischer's websites with impunity since he's Bruce's webmaster and editor on Ground Report and the Kanox wiki. Also the source behind this website Knox Hater Trolls 2.0

This person Annella is his willing dupe, posting pictures of assumed PMF members (her latest avatar isn't her picture, so I can only guess why she's put it up).

A tragic Madame Lafarge figure (her sister was sadly murdered in Italy, she claims, to explain why she hates Italy with such passion) but there simply is no excuse for her recent posting of Meredith's naked body on Twitter. (Now taken down thankfully). Both she and MichaelB have been banned before, yet here they are again, operating several accounts to harass people on Twitter. For example, pictures of someone's deceased sister and cemetery location. What sort of sick mind does that?

Amanda Knox must be so proud.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: FOA HARASSMENT   

Ergon wrote:
malvern wrote:
MichaelB supports Lyn Duncan's actions on twitter MichaelB's opinions carry no weight. Does he hold some position of importance in the IIP group? If so Bruce should do a better job in his Ground Report comment censorship.


Hi, malvern. MichaelB's opinions don't carry weight, but his actions, certainly do. Aside from harassing the Kerchers he has also posted individual's addresses, family pictures, and other photographs lifted from social media on Bruce Fischer's websites with impunity since he's Bruce's webmaster and editor on Ground Report and the Kanox wiki. Also the source behind this website Knox Hater Trolls 2.0

This person Annella is his willing dupe, posting pictures of assumed PMF members (her latest avatar isn't her picture, so I can only guess why she's put it up).

A tragic Madame Lafarge figure (her sister was sadly murdered in Italy, she claims, to explain why she hates Italy with such passion) but there simply is no excuse for her recent posting of Meredith's naked body on Twitter. (Now taken down thankfully). Both she and MichaelB have been banned before, yet here they are again, operating several accounts to harass people on Twitter. For example, pictures of someone's deceased sister and cemetery location. What sort of sick mind does that?

Amanda Knox must be so proud.


Sadly, why are we not surprised?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon , I will never understand the logic of hating and going after the Kerchers while supporting AK. How does advocating for someone you believe to be innocent mean that you need to throw darts at the deceased victim and her family. It shadows the original violence IMO. It sickens me that there are advocates who taunt details of the crime . Stripped down they make it Amanda versus Meredith , with one "winner" . Supporting a person you believe to be innocent is admirable , respecting the victim is not in conflict with that. The Lyn's , MichalB's and Groeffs...cannot contain their contempt of the Kerchers and Meredith. Makes you wonder if innocence is really that much of a big deal to them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:17 am   Post subject: MORE FOAKER VILENESS   

Re the sick mind of MichaelB, it was he who published our reporter at Cassation's address in Rome which then led to her being harassed by Frank Sfarzo (literally, he threatened her) then taunted her with how Andrea Vogt "ignored" her. No, she consoled and spoke to her privately, then kept a distance to maintain her dignity. Andrea will always have my respect for that, no matter how some idjits criticize her.

Loose lips sink ships, but someone had to announce we had a reporter at Cassazione, they guessed her identity because said reporter was having a grand "discussion" with FOA on Facebook. Even though I warned her to keep a low profile. Next thing you know, her picture was all over. These people are vile.

Another FOAKER just threatened one of our members with rape and murder on ISF. It is for this reason I am so sensitive about security, even if I end up the only public "face" of the Wiki. No prize, that :)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:50 am   Post subject: SOURCE OF CASE FILES FOR THE WIKI   

Reply to the morally vacant supporters of Amanda Knox who claim I personally got the case files for the Wiki "from the Kerchers, or through their representative, lawyer Francesco Maresca".

Nope: for the record, from the Wiki: File Library: Sources
Quote:
The sources for the documents and files posted in this file library are the original case trial documents. The Wiki team made requests to the relevant judicial authorities in charge of granting access to the trial documents and this access was granted.

Anyone can request access to the case trial documents. Once a trial is complete, the trial documents become public record. A judge decides whether to grant access based on the nature of the request.


...Etc, with pictures to get an idea of the scope of the documents we sifted, collated, scanned and copied. We now have over 300 gigabytes of files to fulfill our mandate of 'being the largest and most complete repository of documents for this case'.

A team of our editors had to work countless hours in Italy and here to put it all together for the wiki, and we had to keep our work quiet, for the very obvious reasons I gave just now. Now they're safe, applause once again for the over a dozen editors who put up the Wiki under Edward McCall. I was just one of them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I see MichaelB has reacted to being called out about his questionable activity.The haters blog is his handiwork? Nice. MichaelB has included attacking your wife Ergon in his latest post on IIP. IIP remains a support group for a few who still go after the Kerchers and seek to post individual's private information. Bruce says the case is over yet indulges these wayward supporters.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

malvern wrote:
I see MichaelB has reacted to being called out about his questionable activity.The haters blog is his handiwork? Nice. MichaelB has included attacking your wife Ergon in his latest post on IIP. IIP remains a support group for a few who still go after the Kerchers and seek to post individual's private information. Bruce says the case is over yet indulges these wayward supporters.


Wasn't my wife, malvern, someone else's. But no, I would not ever let private information be posted here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:25 am   Post subject: UNCHAINED MELODY   

And now for something better than what we had recently. Click here if it doesn't play https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MJwXaGhjrA

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Really GREAT singers, amazing
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I wonder if AK has been watching the new OJ mania here in the US. He got away with it too. But now when the evidence is clearly shown... nobody thinks he didn't do it. The verdict was more against the LA Law Enforcement/Justice than it was against OJ. It was a statement (like I feel the one in Italy was too) for other things instead of rightfully against of absolutely guilty murderer. She better hope the American media never REALLY looks at the facts of her case of murder in Italy. She better not even sniff around at any trouble in the future.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

However that's my big desire that there will be published the true evidence of Knox's sexual murder and that everybody will see that Knox got away with her heinous murder like O.J.Simpson. So that she won't be able to make ANY money with her crime, that she won't write any terrible articles anymore, nor trying to compete with Meredith and insult her family. That she won't get any publicity except as clear murderess. And that she won't get any better job then janitor. I hope she won't be able to murder again because everybody will be warned. (Even as a janitor she won't be a good one I am afraid.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 pm   Post subject: STEVEN AVERY CASE   

A speedy trial and verdict in Canada finally for murder victim Tim Bosma and his family. Straightforward justice instead of the circus we get er, elsewhere :)
Quote:
Dellen Millard and Mark Smich have both been found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of 32-year-old father Tim Bosma, who disappeared when the two men took him on a ride in his truck (which he'd put for sale)

Coincidence between this and the Steven Avery case is that he murdered Teresa Halbach who'd come to see him about a van he'd put up for sale. In both cases, the victims bodies were found in a burn pit/incinerator at the perpetrator's properties.
In each and every case, the victims Teresa Halbach and Tim Bosma need to be remembered.

And sometimes, justice is served.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cronaca ... a5890.html
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:02 pm   Post subject: The Game Of Thrones   

Game Of Thrones Season finale with Ramin Djawadi’s delicate and mournful piano-driven composition, “Light of the Seven.”

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 96

PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Today Rudy Guede's lawyers have said that during July they plan to ask the court of appeal in Florence to review his sentence.

The grounds for this request (istanza) are based on Art 630.1 of the penal code, which allows a review when the basis of the sentence is in conflict with another finalised judgement. They are referring of course to the absolution of Knox and Sollecito for (not) having acted alongside Guede, and hoping to make a case for the involvement of Guede being unexplainable if Knox and Sollecito were not involved.

«Come è noto - spiega l'ufficio stampa di Guede - l'articolo 630, comma 1, lettera a del codice di procedura penale stabilisce che può essere chiesta la revisione di una sentenza se i fatti posti a fondamento di essa non possano conciliarsi con quelli stabiliti da altra sentenza penale irrevocabile. Nel caso di specie, occorre infatti domandarsi se, per effetto dell'assoluzione in via definitiva di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito dai reati loro ascritti in concorso con Rudy Guede, debba conseguire anche la revisione della sentenza di condanna inflitta a quest'ultimo. Eliminando totalmente il concorso della Knox e di Sollecito - conclude l'ufficio stampa di Guede - così come stabilito dalla Cassazione nei loro confronti, non si spiegherebbe infatti più il ruolo di Rudy».

This link from La Nazione today might work. http://ht.ly/geI4501VyEb (though the paragraph above covers the only interesting part.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
Today Rudy Guede's lawyers have said that during July they plan to ask the court of appeal in Florence to review his sentence.

The grounds for this request (istanza) are based on Art 630.1 of the penal code, which allows a review when the basis of the sentence is in conflict with another finalised judgement. They are referring of course to the absolution of Knox and Sollecito for (not) having acted alongside Guede, and hoping to make a case for the involvement of Guede being unexplainable if Knox and Sollecito were not involved.

«Come è noto - spiega l'ufficio stampa di Guede - l'articolo 630, comma 1, lettera a del codice di procedura penale stabilisce che può essere chiesta la revisione di una sentenza se i fatti posti a fondamento di essa non possano conciliarsi con quelli stabiliti da altra sentenza penale irrevocabile. Nel caso di specie, occorre infatti domandarsi se, per effetto dell'assoluzione in via definitiva di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito dai reati loro ascritti in concorso con Rudy Guede, debba conseguire anche la revisione della sentenza di condanna inflitta a quest'ultimo. Eliminando totalmente il concorso della Knox e di Sollecito - conclude l'ufficio stampa di Guede - così come stabilito dalla Cassazione nei loro confronti, non si spiegherebbe infatti più il ruolo di Rudy».

This link from La Nazione today might work. http://ht.ly/geI4501VyEb (though the paragraph above covers the only interesting part.


Thamks, Sallyoo. Here's another link: Corriere Della Sera which says the same.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:21 am   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE APPEAL   

Update to the The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki
Quote:
For The Press June 30, 2016:
Italian newspapers [1]Corriere Della Sera report that Rudy Guede's attorneys Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi, will be filing an appeal against his definitive sentence in the court of Assizes of Appeal in Florence. This appeal will be based on Art. 630.1 of the Italian penal code, which allows a review when the basis of the sentence is in conflict with another finalized judgment. This focuses on "the conflict of judgment" among the ruling that acquitted Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, which accepts he did not act alone, and the one with which he was sentenced.

Who knows how it will end, but, it is not yet over by a long shot.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 96

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I'm sure we have discussed the case of Yara Gambirasio, murdered (convicted in first instance) by Bossetti. Today his appeal, which was majorly based on a defence disputation of the DNA evidence, was turned down, and he remains convicted of aggravated murder, with a sentence of life imprisonment. The article inked below talks about the DNA arguments, and then goes on to list the phone evidence, video cameras showing his van, and Bossetti's lies.

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07 ... o/2876118/

In another press piece (not coincidentally published on the day of this Bossetti appeal) we learn that La Sapienza University carried out research on the reliability of DNA testing, deciding that it was 'all very dubious'. This research was published in "Forensic Science International: Genetics" , co-authored by Vecchiotti, according to the article linked below.

http://www.linkiesta.it/it/article/2016 ... ome/30959/
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
I'm sure we have discussed the case of Yara Gambirasio, murdered (convicted in first instance) by Bossetti. Today his appeal, which was majorly based on a defence disputation of the DNA evidence, was turned down, and he remains convicted of aggravated murder, with a sentence of life imprisonment. The article inked below talks about the DNA arguments, and then goes on to list the phone evidence, video cameras showing his van, and Bossetti's lies.

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07 ... o/2876118/

In another press piece (not coincidentally published on the day of this Bossetti appeal) we learn that La Sapienza University carried out research on the reliability of DNA testing, deciding that it was 'all very dubious'. This research was published in "Forensic Science International: Genetics" , co-authored by Vecchiotti, according to the article linked below.

http://www.linkiesta.it/it/article/2016 ... ome/30959/


Thanks for the links, Sallyoo.

Good to see the Italian judiciary for once refusing to throw out a conviction due to
1: non-repeatability of DNA tests.
2: vague possibility of contamination.
3: positive nuclear DNA match with Bosetti but another individual's mitochondrial DNA being found in the leggings and briefs.

Here's the Google Translate of the article.

Maybe one day the general trial watchers will realize that DNA experts don't convict or exonerate accused persons, courts do, and the expert's job is to provide a statistical probability of a DNA match, nothing more, nothing less. And enough skulduggery with partial DNA profiles, please! Sollecito had a complete profile on the bra clasp, and no one has shown complete profile matches through tertiary transfer, not within the range of statistical probability.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The linkiesta article says that

Quote:

the Antonio Filippini and Carla Vecchiotti’s study shows that DNA at a crime scene is not definitively the signature of the killer [no one ever said it was]. The researchers demonstrated that a person’s DNA can be found on a thing or a person that has never been touched, but simply ‘transferred’ by others. Must we therefore conclude, says the article, that DNA testing is not as fundamental and solid as we have always thought? “No, says Dr Gillian Tully, Forensic Science Regulator of the British Government: ‘DNA does not lie. It represents exceptional and undeniable evidence, but in the process of analysis there also exists a human interaction. The probability of error is microscopic but greater than zero’.”


What Raffaele has to worry about is that, for a transfer to have taken place, there must have been a transference route.

The article mentions some contamination pathways (during the manufacturing process for the sampling kit, the Heilbron Phantom; at the labs of LCG Forensic, Adam Scott case; transfer by paramedics, Lukis Anderson and Raveesh Kumra case).


Kit contamination can easily be detected through the use of control samples, laboratory contamination between the Via della Pergola samples is ruled out through the number of days and other tests separating the testing (and in any case, Adam Scott had an alibi), and there were no paramedics involved (Raffaele not being comatose in hospital on the night of the murder).


A non-zero error-rate does not mean automatic acquittal and exoneration. A non-zero error-rate does not mean that the evidence is automatically ‘thrown-out’, either.

Even fingerprint analysis has an error-rate. But that still doesn’t help Raffaele, since, interestingly, no (incriminating*) fingerprints of his were found in the cottage (footprints are a different matter). The DNA on the cigarette butt shows a presence but no timestamp (one can concoct a fanciful speculation that the cigarette butt was brought inside by a cigarette butt collecting bird, or similar).

As to the "no evidence in the murder room, therefore innocent" chant, one can likewise claim that 'No evidence of Amanda elsewhere in the cottage, therefore she never lived there' (which is obviously an incorrect conclusion, not to mention Amanda says in some versions that she even showered there that morning), or an alternative claim that 'Since she lived there, traces would be expected to be found, unless she were very neat and wore socks on her hands all the time (no corroboration of either, leaving aside the purse placed on the mattress with socks around the handlestrap) or else there had been the usual traces and they had been at some point cleaned up (mopped up, to use the vernacular) or had somehow evaporated', therefore, the further claim follows, that 'the lack of traces in the murder room is also to be expected, from either cause (Neatfreak Socks or Colluding Cleanup), or both'.

Since Compulsive Cleaner is a hypothesis that stacks up less than Vecchiotti's exonerating-DNA-transfer hypothesis, that leaves the other hypothesis.

And so on, along all the other strands of inference.


- - -
Vecchiotti, nothing against her, but her reasoning and research is at kindergarten level (like Hampikian's (?)). One wonders what sort of university La Sapienza is (assuming it actually is ), or how Vecchiotti managed to get on board (similar questions with Hampikian's tenure).

If her matter is dodgy, then, based on the hypothesis of consistency of behaviour, other Vecchiotti interventions would likewise be displays of kindergarten-level professionalism, which is, indeed, what is turning up.




ETA:
* Thanks, O.
(See post below).


Last edited by Catnip on Sat Jul 02, 2016 4:04 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline olleosnep


Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:03 pm

Posts: 117

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Actually his fingerprints were found on the outside of Meredith's door and on the inside of Mezzetti's door,

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Fingerprints
and
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/d ... nsored.pdf
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 4:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Vecchiotti (or a student) should try an experiment to see if her DNA on the handle of her lab-fridge ends up on the underside surface of the lid of the sample container in the fridge, without her touching anything.

Which raises the question, in the Anderson/Kumra case, of exactly where and how the paramedics ended up transferring DNA from a homeless person (taken to hospital) to a murder victim without leaving any of their own.

In any case, the DNA-analysis error in those cases mentioned was detected and identified (and not by any Supreme Court, from the sounds of the report).


No detection and identification (D&IC) of contamination routes, beyond a conjecture of the possibility of its occurrence, has so far been put forward by Vecchiotti.*


*Which lack and silence, admittedly, is to be expected, being consistent with the overall skill-level demonstrated by her.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The paramedics case, – where DNA was transferred between a comatose homeless drunk who was taken to the hospital, and a home-invasion victim who the same paramedics tried to resuscitate a couple of hours later –, seems to have involved a piece of equipment clipped to the patient’s finger.



[CalInnoProj], (06/2013)
[JT]
[IP]
[Nature]
[SciAm]
[NYT]
[Andrew H Stevenson] blog
[CBS Local]
[SF Gate]



What the reports/recaps unintentionally reveal is how the (American) lawyers seem to treat their beliefs about DNA as part of a legendarium, rather than as something that is rationally assessed as all other circumstantial evidence is. “Scientific” seems to be a magic word in US English, and a synonym to “robotic”.

If that is the general case, it explains the heat and focus the FOA/PR and reporting entourage bring to the topic of DNA and the importance they place on its removal from the picture (for Amanda, not for Rudy), and why they can’t see the other evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 - DNA   

Marasca-Bruno had the weird idea that a calendar stationery box, in which the knife was transported, could somehow cause contamination, and the fact the knife was taken out at the police station (presumably with the knife wrapped in cellophane) before being sent to the labs proves 'fatal police flaws'.


To be fair to Vecchiotti, she (he) is just doing what the defense pay them to do: throw doubt on the evidence. This can be useful if the defendant is actually innocent.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Vecchiotti is a she. I suspect that her recent so-called research (the article as to which I haven't bothered to read) is a post facto attempt to plug a big hole in the report for the Hellmann court, namely on supportive evidence for the likelihood of contamination by tertiary transfer. It seems that she is even now trying to justify the tenor and conclusions of that report and interestingly I see that she is using case examples to which Halkides was wont to refer. Sounds a bit desperate to me and I would not trust her or any horse from her stable. La Sapienza should put her out to grass.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:30 pm   Post subject: SECONDARY DNA TRANSFER   

Catnip wrote:
...What the reports/recaps unintentionally reveal is how the (American) lawyers seem to treat their beliefs about DNA as part of a legendarium, rather than as something that is rationally assessed as all other circumstantial evidence is. “Scientific” seems to be a magic word in US English, and a synonym to “robotic”.

If that is the general case, it explains the heat and focus the FOA/PR and reporting entourage bring to the topic of DNA and the importance they place on its removal from the picture (for Amanda, not for Rudy), and why they can’t see the other evidence.


Interesting debate on DNA sampling at Websleuths with some asserting "Secondary transfer is an irrefutable fact" and those pointing out the problems with partial profiles "A full profile is 13 markers, anything less is a partial profile" - in the case of Jon Benet Ramsey, with experts wrongly identifying DNA found under Jon Benet Ramsey's fingernails as a 'match' with DNA found in her underwear. Yet, "Unfortunately, we know that this is a case of 2 markers “matching” 10 markers."

When scientists fudge the facts, in the Ramsey, McCann, OJ Simpson and Meredith Kercher cases, it really is too bad that all other evidence gets thrown out by some courts, selectively.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 - DNA   

jamie wrote:
Marasca-Bruno had the weird idea that a calendar stationery box, in which the knife was transported, could somehow cause contamination, and the fact the knife was taken out at the police station (presumably with the knife wrapped in cellophane) before being sent to the labs proves 'fatal police flaws'.


Bruno just copy-pasted what Bongiorno said. At the first-instance trial, Bongiorno was trying to get the court to think, without providing evidence for it, that Meredith's DNA had gotten onto the knife because it had been handled at the police station. Her unspoken assumption being that Meredith's DNA was "all over" the police station and/or the officers, which is why she spent so much time in cross-examination asking who searched what premises, and how and when. The cardboard box was in a cupboard; a different team of detectives went to Raffaele's place. Bongiorno tried a different tack, about the police touching things. But they used gloves.

And so on.

(The box was for safety during transportation, to prevent accidental injury from a sharp implement.)



jamie wrote:
To be fair to Vecchiotti, she (he) is just doing what the defense pay them to do: throw doubt on the evidence. This can be useful if the defendant is actually innocent.


To be complete, it's also useful if the defendant isn't innocent (not that that is a question for the lawyer to answer).

Vecchiotti's contribution, which boils down to 'there's always the possibility of contamination in anything', doesn't help any court, because it means, in her view, that all DNA evidence is unusable and unreliable. In turn, logically speaking, that means that Rudy has to go free. And also any other person brought into court because of DNA.

The same reasoning can be applied to fingerprints: "There is a non-zero error-rate. Therefore, throw the evidence out."

The real world works slightly differently.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

One of the commenters on one of the articles made an interesting observation: that the CSI audience knows that time elapses in the real-world, and that more than one person is involved in the test labs.

As they said, watching long periods of nothing happening would be boring TV.

===

When people say that jurors "believe" CSI, it's like saying that jurors believe Santa Claus really went to Mars and gave them what for, as documented in "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" in 1964. (It's a long story, starting with how the children of Mars are watching too much Earth television, etc : [W]).
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

sallyoo, don't recall reading about the Yara case here before, but I read this long article in Guardian last year about the investigation to find the killer, Bossetti, and if there are folks here who are new to the case, this is fascinating reading. Or listening, there's an audio of the article, too.

The murder that has obsessed Italy
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Italy does come up with some interesting crime cases, such as Emanuela Orlandi
Quote:
The Telegraph
Malcolm Moore
Vatican accused over girl's murder

The Vatican has been accused of ordering the assassination of a teenage girl who went missing 25 years ago.

and
Alois Estermann
Quote:
The Daily Beast
Barbie Latza Nadeau
Vatican Murder Mystery: Was It a Gay Love Triangle?

A salacious crime in the pope’s backyard has gone unsolved for almost 14 years. Barbie Latza Nadeau on the double homicide—and the rumored gay love triangle that could be behind it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:

One wonders what sort of university La Sapienza is (assuming it actually is ), or how Vecchiotti managed to get on board (similar questions with Hampikian's tenure).


Oh, I think we all know what sort of university La Sapienza is since the Parentopoli scandal (the dean appointed his wife, a high-school teacher, as a professor of history, and his daughter, who had neither medical nor legal qualifications, as a professor of legal medicine, and his son, then aged 30, as the youngest professor of cardiology in Italy), which led to a change in the law so that heads of university departments are now, officially, forbidden to hire their relatives. Although, interestingly, the relevant English Wikipedia articles have all been mysteriously 'cleaned up' so that stuff doesn't appear any more. Odd, that.

And Conti and Vecchiotti were colleagues of Bongiorno's father on the legal faculty at La Sapienza.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

“in the private academies of Italy, whither I was favoured to resort,”
(Milton, The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelaty)


“Into this certainly not the least snugly sheltered arbour amongst the groves of Academe, Pen now found his way, leaning on his uncle's arm,”
(Thackeray’s Pendennis, c XVIII)


Sapienza means ‘knowledge’, but unofficially it more means ‘in the know’. ;)


There’s a word in Japanese,

外史
がいし
Gai.shi
Unofficial history
As in: 外=Off, 史=the record
(and wàishǐ, in Chinese)

which prompts a suggestion that, in place of the Cambridge Dictionary’s ([CambDict]) translation of the phrase ‘the groves of Academe’ into Chinese as “大学” (=’big school’ = university), a more suitable rendering would be the title of Wu Jingzi’s 1750 satirical novel, 儒林外史 (Rúlín wàishǐ), which could be translated as “Scholars of Academe: The Untold Story”.

It sends up the public service examinations and what Yuan Shishuo in China Today calls “Anmaßung und Heuchelei der Beamten-Gelehrten” ([link]], July 2004): the pretension and hypocrisy of the mandarin literati (or public service clerks, we would call them today).


[W.en] “The Scholars”
[W.de] “Die inoffizielle Geschichte des Gelehrtenwalds”
[W.fr] “Chronique indiscrète des mandarins”
[W.ru] “Неофициальная история конфуцианцев”
[W.cz] “Literáti a mandaríni”




“Vecchiotti’s Fridge” would be La Sapienza’s response to that, especially with her all-important DNA sample package in the fridge with a handwritten note on it: ‘Do not throw out! This means you!!”

Talk about international standards.

Someone must have been inspired by the Carry On films.
stup-)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
Someone must have been inspired by the Carry On films.
stup-)


I know I was ;)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline olleosnep


Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:03 pm

Posts: 117

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The University La Sapienza is actually quite a large university, according to Wiki.it the largest in Europe:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapienza_ ... A0_di_Roma

with student body of 110,000+ and about 19,000 employees.

I remember Sapienza from my days in Rome in the late '70s, when we were actually advised not to go near it because of the student protests and police clashes that happened in 1977. In any event, the university is worth a visit for the architecturally curious. Its rationalist/Fascist layout and design by Piacentini and others is worth a tour. And the original unversity seat by piazza Navona features Sant'Ivo della Sapienza, Borromini's masterpiece, designed and built at about the same time as San Carlino.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sant+iv ... 20&bih=951
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

BBC to the rescue:--

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21507168
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:03 am   Post subject: LA SAPIENZA   

I don't know how highly rated Vecchiotti's forensics lab is :) but the law faculty students I met at Cassazione were razor sharp.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

With Cicero and Ulpian as role models, ...
we wouldn't expect less.

That risk/negligence case about being at the barber's while children are playing soccer (football) nearby is still being cited today. (ball gets kicked, ball hits barber's elbow just at the beard-trimming moment, customer is harmed: did the customer accept the risk?).

That case is also the first mention on record of football.

(Cheers to Wales, by the way. Keep the momentum going!)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Friend of a friend of a friend.

As with all things, Italy has it down to a fine art.

Here, it used to be the ‘old school tie’ network, but that has faded over the years as the realisation set in (particularly in business and, to some extent, politics) that the best person for the job was someone from outside the circle: literally, fresh blood.

Besides inbreeding, the other disadvantage of the friend-of-a-friend technique is that it allows the Mafia-virus a way into the bloodstream of society, and one day, suddenly, family has become ‘family’. It is very efficient for money-laundering, though, so the incentive to dismantle the whole apparatus will be quite low (and in some cases, even negative) – it will be very slow to get those wheels to start turning, if they turn at all.

It is a species of an arc of one of those Circles chronicled in the Dantean Inferno.

The architecture, though, as mentioned, is superb. It's music set into stone (literally, through the use of harmonics in the proportions - see Vitruvius and co).





P.S.
Speaking of harmonics, the planets are in harmonic orbits.
Jupiter is visible in the evening skies, just after sunset.
And the probe called Juno has just reached there.
pp-(


PPS

More harmonics:
“A sequence of tones transmitted from the spacecraft confirmed the braking manoeuvre [to enter orbit around Jupiter] had gone as planned.”
[BBC]
Top Profile 

Offline olleosnep


Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:03 pm

Posts: 117

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nepotism has a super-long history in Italy, back to (and before) the Roman empire even. It is like THE sociological foundation on which not just the Mafia is based but all sorts of aspects of Italian history.

Just as one example, the Colonna family:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonna_(famiglia)

The attitude behind 'favoring the family' also explains some curious tidbits here in this data bit about small family businesses:

http://www.aidaf.it/aidaf/le-aziende-fa ... in-italia/

that otherwise shows Italy being basically in line with other countries. Most notably, 66% of Italian family businesses don't have outside managers, while only 26% of French and 10% of UK firms are that way. That tidbit says it all really.

It will take generations to "break the mold" on this.

Notable in the AIDAF link, most family businesses remain concentrated in the north, especially manufacturing. In reality, this statistic needs to be compared with which economic sectors are more predominant where. The south is mostly agriculture and service sectors:

http://www.dps.tesoro.it/documentazione ... 6/aV_2.jpg
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yes, it is well known that nepotism rules Italy,s business and also politics at least local. What I can't believe that nepotism was the way, the two murderers, RS and AK got freed. Even more surprise me that Knox got freed in Florance against the police although Florance is the centre agains Mafia and corruption. By the way, am missing posts by Ergon and others. Are all people on vacation?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Just watching football, elisa :) But seriously, there's not much happening in the case until we hear results of the European Court application and other trials. We're cataloguing all the case files now for the wiki then putting them up. And this site will remain as a record of all the work done to date and discussions we had.

Of course, always glad to hear from members and answer any questions.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 2:04 pm   Post subject: DALLAS SHOOTINGS   

Belated condolences for the Dallas Police Officers who lost their lives. Turns out the shooter wasn't a part of any group but a mentally unstable ex veteran.
The Daily Beast
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Just want to update everyone on Sollecito's activities and movements throughout Italy in June and July.

On June 8, he presented his book in Milano; on June 13, he spoke at a conference in Levico.

At the beginning of July, he visited Perugia, once again. As is well known, returning to the scene of the crime is typical behavior for a criminal. Did Sollecito show it to a new girlfriend (see his latest interview given to Corriere dell'Umbria) ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 5, 2016

Is it possible to distinguish the truth of the case from that of the media?

Raffaele Sollecito presents his book on the legal case in which he was unjustly involved.
Raffaele Sollecito, who in real life is a computer engineer, will present his book, for the first time in Milan, Wednesday, June 8 at 18:30 Palazzo delle Stelline, Corso Magenta n° 61.

Along with the author, at the presentation of the autobiography A step out of the night, published by Longanesi, will speak the journalist Maurizio Belpietro and lawyers Michele Andreano and Gianluca Tizzoni, the first is the lawyer of Alex Boettcher and Manuel Foffo, the second was the family lawyer of Chiara Poggi, the student murdered in Garlasco by her boyfriend Alberto Stasi. Journalist Giuliana Di Stefano Avila moderates the meeting.

The meeting will address the plight of Italian jurists, both judges and lawyers: trials by media on TV, which too often are parallel trials / processes at the expense of the presumption of innocence, which does not help the audience, as stated months ago at the Judicial Year inauguration in the Supreme Court by the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella: "It would be highly desirable to achieve a fair balance between freedom of expression and the press on the one hand, and on the other, the equally fundamental requirements of respect for private life, dignity of persons, confidentiality of investigations, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial."

"I agree that journalists do their job, by providing information – explains Raffaele Sollecito — and I agree that they need to report (about trials) and that reporters and cameras are also in the courtroom. However, they must stick to procedural facts and not to gossip or alleged evidence, which only serve to affect, negatively, public opinion and, consequently, justice, that is done by men. But I believe in Justice, because thank God and my family, who supported me, and in the end the truth won."


LA PRIMA PAGINA

To be continued...
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

June13, 2016

Raffaele Sollecito in Levico: "In the case of Perugia the role of private investigators fundamental" [PHOTO]

Raffaele Sollecito was speaking at a conference of Abbrevia, private investigation company, in Levico, telling little-known aspects of the story

"The support of private investigators was crucial in the case of the Perugia murder". To say so is Raffaele Sollecito, involved in the case along with the American Amanda Knox, from Levico, where he took part in the conference celebrating ten years of Abbrevia, one of the main Italian companies in the sector, and at the presentation of the specialized site StopSecrets.

"Law enforcement inquiries, in my case, [were] often inaccurate and one-sided - said Sollecito - the commitment of private investigators was critical for reconstructing correctly certain facts, and [they were] strongly backed by my father and my lawyers". "A fundamental role – he explains in a statement to Abbrevia – of private investigation to ensure the rights of all, suspects and defendants."

"Some of the details and reconstructions provided by [police] investigators were dismantled or revalued patiently by professionals who assisted my defenders. Without the contribution of their professionalism and their dedication, the proceeding would have probably had a different outcome, and today I'd be serving a lengthy sentence being innocent," he said.

After a short story related to this little known aspect of the Perugia murder dating back to 2007, Raffaele Sollecito talked about his new activities, as a computer engineer, with which he is rebuilding his life. Together with several partners, in fact, he is at the head of a start-up which won a grant of the Puglia region and he is already engaged in the study of several apps useful to citizens in various sectors.


TRENTO TODAY

To be continued...
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito in Perugia - Excerpts from an interview with Corriere dell'Umbria:

July 3, 2016

Raffaele Sollecito: "I have a right to redemption"

By Alessandra Borghi

He walked around downtown. Friday night also strolled along [looked around] Corso Garibaldi, where he lived when he had a student flat there and remembered it as a rather turbulent area. "Now it seems changed - says Raffaele Sollecito - I saw that they rearranged [rebuilt, fixed] the road on Via della Pergola", the one where stands the house of the Meredith Kercher murder of which the Apulian engineer was finally acquitted. Sollecito has made several stops in Perugia and has also been spotted in the area of Borgo XX Giugno along with a girl. New flame? On the subject he is buttoned up. Also because "the judicial ordeal" he lived through taught him to protect his privacy. […] Saturday, July 2 Raffaele met with his lawyer Luca Maori. "He is one of my reference points."

Are there any others?

"There are many friends from the time of my [university] studies. And recently I saw Professor Alfredo Milani (the University teacher who had been helping him since he was studying in the period of detention in Terni until the second degree in Computer Science [in Verona], ed) .

Do you feel hostility [towards you] from other people?

"Little by little things are getting more balanced. However, I think that the Franca Leosini interview with Rudy Guede on Storie maledette was a blow [to my image]. I will not accept it from a person who has never spoken during the trial. I discount objective consequences of certain statements. a broadcast seen by over a million and a half people on TV, and online from 200 thousand ... ".

Why do you feel hurt?

"He [Guede] seemed to have cast shadows on the former co-defendants. And I think he hid some key investigation points ... Rudy was sentenced definitively: he should not slander others or describe a reality that does not exist. After watching Meredith die he went to a disco ... If he had any remorse, what was the point? Then he escaped to Germany ... ".

You have always proclaimed your innocence; certain truths were also revealed through numerous television appearances during and after the trial. Why cannot Rudy do the same?

"Rudy can do whatever he wants, if he does not bring up others. I am also entitled to redemption / liberation after being acquitted. Or should I continue to fight with ghosts? For all I care, Guede may also serve the whole sentence in the community instead of in jail, provided he does not throw shadows on others. They spoke about what he said after the TV interview. I repeat, it is not his judicial history that interests me. If anything, there are journalists who ask me opinions about it."

For example, on a review of his sentence that Rudy’s lawyers are going to request.

"I do not understand why. There are no judgments at odds with each other."

Were you welcomed here [in Perugia]?

"I thought that the city was quite hostile towards me, that somehow I would be blamed for the negative hype linked to the murder of Meredith. Rather, walking in the streets does not confirm all this resentment. Even last night (Friday, July 1, ed) some guys had offered me a drink next to Agraria [Agriculture] and invited me to a Metal concert knowing that I like that kind of music. We also made a selfie. They feel positive towards me. I was stopped in many streets. I was spoken to as if I were a normal [person], as if they did not want me to feel any weight, and they wanted to chat with me. Maybe, then, there are high school students who ask to make a selfie mimicking violent actions and strange poses for fun ... Well, of course in these cases I say no, I think it’s in bad taste. "

The past precludes something?

"It precludes when there is prejudice, but if people are smart enough, not."

Your book A step out of the night?

“It sold thousands of copies, especially online. I have to attend two literary prizes, July 7 in Polignano Mare and [July] 10 in Pontremoli".

Your start-up, how is it going?

"We study an advertising marketing plan. Our portfolio is on memoriesoffices.com site. 'Beonmemories.com' is e-commerce combined with a social network. […] We have also created a portal to book umbrellas online. We show images of a beach shot with a drone. I have the license to operate it."

And the request for compensation for wrongful imprisonment?

"It isn't set yet for a hearing. That money will not cover even half of what I spent for my defense."


CORRIERE DELL'UMBRIA
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In other news, Bernardo Provenzano, infamous former head of the Sicilian mafia has died yesterday in prison at 83.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36782555
Looks like Riina is outlasting them all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 10:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That sad website could have been put up by an 8th grader in three weeks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

A thought about Knox's recent blathering - I was friends for 10 years with a Vietnam vet who had PTSD. Amanda Knox does not have PTSD.

There"s not one chance in hell 4 years in an Italian prision compares to what happened to my friend.

What is this miserable POS newspaper thinking by letting this self-obsessed twit carry on this way about herself over and over again?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

JohnQ wrote:
That sad website could have been put up by an 8th grader in three weeks.



To borrow a phrase from [InkStain], in the context of a discussion in the western US a few years ago about water flowing uphill (literally), the “aqueduct has been running half full for a long time”.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 2:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

JohnQ wrote:
A thought about Knox's recent blathering - I was friends for 10 years with a Vietnam vet who had PTSD. Amanda Knox does not have PTSD.

There"s not one chance in hell 4 years in an Italian prision compares to what happened to my friend.

What is this miserable POS newspaper thinking by letting this self-obsessed twit carry on this way about herself over and over again?


PTSD can be quite a cover for the sociopathically inclined, JohnQ. In my experience, those who have it never talk about it, but I guess, professional victims often do.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:04 pm   Post subject: SOLLECITO DEAL   

Catnip wrote:
JohnQ wrote:
That sad website could have been put up by an 8th grader in three weeks.

To borrow a phrase from [InkStain], in the context of a discussion in the western US a few years ago about water flowing uphill (literally), the “aqueduct has been running half full for a long time”.

In that flood of water that was the Sollecito aqueduct, Catnip, I wonder if ever we will get proof one way or the other about the Maori brokered supposed "deal".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Just want to update everyone on Sollecito's activities and movements throughout Italy in June and July.

On June 8, he presented his book in Milano; on June 13, he spoke at a conference in Levico.

At the beginning of July, he visited Perugia, once again. As is well known, returning to the scene of the crime is typical behavior for a criminal. Did Sollecito show it to a new girlfriend (see his latest interview given to Corriere dell'Umbria) ?

Hi guermantes, most people will know Knox broke off her "engagement", and now has a new boy friend? Contrast that with Sollecito, who seems to um, go through new girl friends like Kleenexes.

I wonder if either will ever be capable of a successful relationship.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello to all, just read, that Guede made his degree in history successfully with super results. Oh, by the way, does The creepy Sollecito still comment crimes on TV? I suppose his Pap'a makes it possible or MADE it possible, just the same happens with Knox scribbles in the WST. I suppose, papa Knox organized it and Knoxes pay to the redaction for AK's gruesome articels every month.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 96

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yes indeed Elisa, Guede received his first degree yesterday, (with honours) and this important achievement was witnessed by his primary school teacher, Ivana Tiberi, and Guede's long time friend Giacomo Benedetti, (alongside the expected academics).

It's interesting to observe that Sollecito, in his recent conversion to 'libertarian politician', should also be applauding this 'well spent' time in prison. I hope he is. Guede is certainly helping to make a very good case for prison reform internationally.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Some rehabilitate better than others, Sallyoo ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

If anyone was wondering about 'Ada from Kazakhstan' in Knox's last blogpost, she does exist, she did attend the Universita per Stranieri, her number was on Knox's phone records, she did give a statement to police (but didn't follow the case much from 2008 because she was back in Kazakhstan) and she is working in the US at present, as product manager for an IT system with applications in real estate. Just, her real name isn't Ada.

picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Sorry, got to delete the LinkedIn profile. She was just a witness and might be alarmed seeing her cv being posted here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:10 pm   Post subject: Ardak From Kazakhstan   

But her name is Ardak Kussainova and the Wiki has her deposition http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/d ... ainova.pdf
saying she saw Knox in Le Chic on the night of Halloween.

Additional info:
Knox to police memo
Rita Ficarra memo

Knox says in her notebook they got together so she could give her guitar lessons, and the phone logs show they called regularly.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

At least Ada exists . Why did she tell the police in her deposition that Amanda was "annoyed" the house was sequestered and she couldn't get her clothes? Sounds like Ada went out of her way to point out Amanda's callous behaviour. Ada may have been shocked by Amanda's selfish concerns , realizing she was not really a friend to Meredith . Her deposition was short and to the point but obviously she thought Amanda's irritation over the inconvenience being locked out was something to share with police.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ada might just be a little concerned about being used as a prop in her previous articles, malvern. (Knox mentioned running into her in Seattle; here, Ada is transformed into one of her 'supporters').
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline astro


User avatar


Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 2:02 pm

Posts: 46

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The Manipulative Memoir of Amanda Knox: A Critical Analysis Kindle Edition
[image]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoX3wiyWcAAoh_d.jpg:large[/image]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J2T0R20/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_7UkMxb91KYN6C
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

My take on Sarah Koenig's coverage of the Adnan Syed case has been posted on TJMK:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... /#comments
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Interesting case. Jay Wilds reminds me of Rudy Guede. He tells truths and lies, and changed his story just a few too many times to be totally believable. There is even a 'butt call' in this case that reminds me of Meredith's last phone activity. I don't believe in innocent 'butt calls', at least not when there is a murder so I came upon a theory that I found interesting.
https://viewfromll2.com/2014/12/13/seri ... t-332-p-m/
I believe Adnan planned to kill her that day and that Jay was present during the murder. Hopefully they will merely adjust the timeline a bit in the retrial and nothing else will change. Asia McClain is not important because I believe Adnan caught up with Hae after the library. Anyway, I think they have the right guy.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here's the Intercept interview with the star witness Jay Wilds
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

If you are in the Australia/SE Asia region then you might have heard of the Cyanide Coffee Murder in Jakarta. The trial has just started. It is an amazing story, and it was all recorded on CCTV! What was she thinking? Not (yet) available on youtube though :)
http://www.smh.com.au/world/coffee-murd ... pjk3o.html
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:38 pm   Post subject: ADNAN SYED   

Great article, The Machine, and I agree with those who claim bias in programs that present the defense but not the prosecution case.

However, the appeals court ruling Baltimore Sun and Post Conviction Relief Order vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial, ruling that the trial lawyer's "unprofessional error" re: incoming phone calls and ineffective assistance in questioning the cell phone technician "prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial".

It also ordered that an alibi witness's (Asia McLain?) testimony should be resubmitted to the appeals court. Syed will remain in prison in case the state appeals the ruling.

Having said that, I think the state still has a strong case based on the lack of an alibi witness (Syed said he spent several hours in the mosque, no one came forward to corroborate that) and an FBI technician specializing in cell phone technology says the evidence would still be sufficient to re convict.

The Innocence Project has already identified a "potential suspect which is not part of the appeals process but will definitely help in case he gets a new trial" A Shot at Redemption in the U.S. Criminal Justice System Sigh.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Meet Knox's new boyfriend in Daily mail article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... trial.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:51 pm   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE   

Umbria Journal reports that Rudy Guede's new lawyers have filed for a retrial at the Florence Court of Appeals. He argues that since he was condemned of the crime 'in conjunction with others' the case should be revisited. The article also notes the Florence Court had also condemned Knox and Sollecito though the Supreme Court vacated the verdict.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 96

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rudy Guede's lawyers have asked for a REVIEW of his sentence, which is far from the same thing as asking for a retrial.

I think we should be clear about this.

His lawyers are claiming that there are two contradictory positions which have been taken by the corte di cassazione. The lawyers are (IMO) correct in this interpretation, and they are also correct (IMO) that this constitutes grounds (in Italian law) for asking for a REVIEW of Guede's sentence.

He was sentenced 'in concorso con gli altri' (aka as an accomplice with others), which conflicts with the more recent sentence 'clearing' Knox and Sollecito. So the question remains, who were gli altri, because Guede's final conviction depends on there having been 'altri'.

We will have to wait and see whether the request for a review of Guede's sentence is entertained. Then we will have to wait and see whether an application for a retrial gets as far as being considered. This is looking far into the future.
Top Profile 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I have now got round to self publishing a kindle book on Amazon. Justice on Trial: The Final Outcome - Evidence and Analysis in the Meredith Kercher Murder Case. 466 pages. Link to the page below. Royalties at 35% so I am not going to make a fortune! I am hoping somebody can afford it, will not find it too boring and will give it a 5 star review!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JB6XMDA
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

"Dopo avere trovato Meredith morente è andato in discoteca per poi fuggire in Germania. Questi sono i fatti".
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 05b04.html

Does that mean what Google says it means? Did RS really say that? Slip of the tongue?
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In other news, it seems that the innocence project are deserting a certain railroaded totally framed innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice, manufactured evidence *wails for another seven hours* and corrupt cops, Steven Avery. lawyer that freed him originally is of the opinion that Avery's murderous ass should stay in prison where he belongs until he dies and is buried in the prison cemetery.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/opinion/column/steven-avery-should-stay-behind-bars----michael/article_a1b28294-23df-5822-ab72-815264fde10e.html

Poor Steve. EVERYONE is in on this conspiracy it seems. :(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
"Dopo avere trovato Meredith morente è andato in discoteca per poi fuggire in Germania. Questi sono i fatti".
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 05b04.html

Does that mean what Google says it means? Did RS really say that? Slip of the tongue?


Sollecito says that he doesn't find Guede's story credible. Then he states the facts which are that "after he found Meredith dying he went to a disco and then escaped to Germany."

So what's the slip of the tongue?


Last edited by Rumpole on Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:49 pm   Post subject: FRANK SFARZO AGAIN   

Frank Sfarzo needs to get his facts in a row. Guede's request for review of his sentence and retrial while weak cannot possibly result in a court ruling he "killed Meredith alone", since that would contradict the Supreme Court's Giordano and Marasca rulings.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:33 am   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE REVIEW REQUEST   

Personally, I think his case is weak. Just because they didn't find unspecified accomplices, his presence there at the crime scene is undisputed, the others, not so. Still, I never give up on the possibility of more surprises down road. Of course it's a back door review of M-B, and while I've argued precisely this sort of challenge on NET before, I advocated it be done through the president of the SCM. No one took up on it, though, neither the Kerchers nor Mignini or any other judge, so I gave up on that. Now I wonder if the Florence Court really wants to throw a spanner in the works?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
max wrote:
"Dopo avere trovato Meredith morente è andato in discoteca per poi fuggire in Germania. Questi sono i fatti".
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 05b04.html

Does that mean what Google says it means? Did RS really say that? Slip of the tongue?


Sollecito says that he doesn't find Guede's story credible. Then he states the facts which are that "after he found Meredith dying he went to a disco and then escaped to Germany."

So what's the slip of the tongue?

Thanks for the translation. Sollecito confirms Guede's version that he found Meredith when she was already dying which is peculiar.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
max wrote:
"Dopo avere trovato Meredith morente è andato in discoteca per poi fuggire in Germania. Questi sono i fatti".
http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews ... 05b04.html

Does that mean what Google says it means? Did RS really say that? Slip of the tongue?


Sollecito says that he doesn't find Guede's story credible. Then he states the facts which are that "after he found Meredith dying he went to a disco and then escaped to Germany."

So what's the slip of the tongue?

Thanks for the translation. Sollecito confirms Guede's version that he found Meredith when she was already dying which is peculiar.

Are we sure he isn't paraphrasing Guede?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Probably, and the writer messed up the order of the sentences. Then again, RS isn't one of the brightest so who knows.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

He’s doing the Bongiorno blind-spot thing and quoting from the court record:


‘I know the court documents and the whole proceedings,’ he said. 'What Guede’s doing doesn’t make sense. His traces are at the scene of the crime. He’s told lies and the alibi that he claimed to have ended up putting him in a bad light. After having found Meredith dying he went to the disco and then fled to Germany. These are the facts.’


Except for the going to the disco and then to Germany part, the rest of it sounds pretty much Raffaele’s situation (at the first instance proceedings, anyway).


‘morente’ = on the point of dying, drawing last breath. For someone who claims that ‘what he [Rudy] says doesn’t interest me’, there’s a lot of repetition of Rudy’s words. Almost like a returning to the scene of the crime.


There’s also a comment under the report: “You’ve got a face like an @ . . you’re only benefitting because our justice has dropped the ball this time.’

‘Toppare’ = at root (no pun intended) means ‘to trip over a tree stump [a “toppo”]’, as in fall flat on your face, trip up, foul up, blunder, make a big mistake. (Not related to ‘topo’ = mouse).

Bruno the Blunderer: apt. It sums him up, in terms of scientific, logic and legal skills. And actually, Vecchiotti, Bruno, Hellmann, Bongiorno – they all fall in to the 'blundering' category, as if they're channelling an ever-repeating punishment from one of Dante's Circles of Hell. Not that surprising though, on further reflection, if the way they got in was not through merit, but by selection. Raffaele "Mr Bright Spark" knows which side his cake is buttered on. Now, if only he would stop reliving the moment while simultaneously denying that he cares what Rudy says and does. Which he’s been doing since day one, admittedly; so it will take some effort to give up such an entrenched habit. Not that he’s one to exert much effort in the first place (study, self-medication, business ventures, blog posts, thinking, etc etc; there’s only so much his father can do). So that stone will continue to roll on for a bit more along that same path. He can't help but blunder and blunder about.
Top Profile 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 96

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:06 am   Post subject: Netflix docu drama   

So, much twitter showbiz 'news' about an upcoming Netflix docu drama featuring la Konx.

Voices tell me that this is (more or less) a product of 'a groupie', named as Stephen Robert Morse.

I'd never heard of him, and was slightly surprised to discover that this 'nonentity' had blocked me on twitter.

He does feature on IMDB as somebody who has been 'involved in films' (not this particular oeuvre, but give IMDB time to update).

So - there you go peeps: research him if you can! (Facebook is closed to me, which is kind of a pity, but I can live with it.)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:48 am   Post subject: Re: Netflix docu drama   

Sallyoo wrote:
So, much twitter showbiz 'news' about an upcoming Netflix docu drama featuring la Konx.

Voices tell me that this is (more or less) a product of 'a groupie', named as Stephen Robert Morse.

I'd never heard of him, and was slightly surprised to discover that this 'nonentity' had blocked me on twitter.

He does feature on IMDB as somebody who has been 'involved in films' (not this particular oeuvre, but give IMDB time to update).

So - there you go peeps: research him if you can! (Facebook is closed to me, which is kind of a pity, but I can live with it.)

Hi, Sallyoo, Stephen Robert Morse appears to be a producer on "Amanda Knox" even though IMDB doesn't list any info. Funny also how early news releases didn't mention his involvement, only listing Mette Heide as producer.

According to the LA Times
Quote:
With "Amanda Knox," Brian McGinn and Rod Blackhurst examine the incidents that led to both the Italian conviction and ultimate acquittal for an alleged murder by the title subject. The film is likely to engender passions, and possibly even competing viewpoints, on both sides of the Atlantic.
though having read Morse's one sided reporting on the case I doubt it will be fair. Not that I'll be watching it.

Pity. Mignini was warned not to cooperate with the Danish film maker but went ahead any way :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:00 pm   Post subject: MORE MORSE   

Stephen Morse seems to be hiding evidence of his bias and fandom for Knox... He took down this article from his blog but thanks to WayBack machine it's still up.
Amanda Knox Is Joffrey: Fighting The SVU-Obsessed Narcissistic Trolls Who Want To Live In Her World
24 Feb 2014
Quote:
In essence, the prosecutor, Giulano Mignini, overstepped his bounds and basically created a theory that Kercher was murdered in a sex game gone bad, a theory that he learned about from his trusted psychic who’s now, thankfully, dead. Mignini had made other prior errors in his prosecutorial work and had been sanctioned for his actions, such as when he sent journalist Mario Spezi to prison, which is well-documented in The Monster of Florence, the book that Spezi co-authored with American writer Douglas Preston.

As I said, it's a pity Mignini didn't know of his involvement or what Morse wrote about him before his interview.
He also harangued Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau for their reporting and wrote a lot of shite on Twitter with lots of rebuttal from many of us. We knew about him since 2014, interesting his involvement in the documentary was kept a secret until it was announced for the Film Festival.
Morsels on Mignini
More Morsels on Mignini


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:56 pm   Post subject: MORE BIAS MORSE   

Here's Stephen Morse claiming to know more about the case than Andrea Vogt.
Morsels Vogt
Vogt's reply:
Vogt Reply Morse
Here's hoping he doesn't slander her in the documentary.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I remember reading about his experience at on of the court hearings. He made glowing comments about the defence lawyers and spoke to Madison at length. There was a wordpress article he wrote about trolls? Feb 2014. It's listed on IIP and AK's blog under media, the link shows its no longer available.. The fact that the defendants posted the news so quickly on FB must mean they approve of the content. RS posted he participated in the film.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here are a few tweets written by Stephen Robert Morse (@morsels on Twitter) attacking journalist Barbie Latza Nadeau who covered the case for The Daily Beast and, unlike Morse, was present in court and is fluent in Italian.

Click to jump back in time

The tweets are not available anymore and I wonder if Stephen Robert Morse deleted them to conceal his bias in favour of Amanda Knox before he joined the production team of the latest Knox documentary.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:40 am   Post subject: NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY AMANDA KNOX   

Nell wrote:
Here are a few tweets written by Stephen Robert Morse (@morsels on Twitter) attacking journalist Barbie Latza Nadeau who covered the case for The Daily Beast and, unlike Morse, was present in court and is fluent in Italian.

Click to jump back in time

The tweets are not available anymore and I wonder if Stephen Robert Morse deleted them to conceal his bias in favour of Amanda Knox before he joined the production team of the latest Knox documentary.


Thanks for this reminder, Nell, and thanks to The Machine for the original post proving Morse's bias. Public Minister Mignini may not have known of Morse's harassment of reporters but here's the many tweets which Morse deleted, likely to hide this record.

I hope the documentary producers will not have allowed his ravings to show up in the finished product.

The Machine wrote:
Stephen Robert Morse, who is a journalist for The Daily Caller, has been getting his knickers in almighty twist and started ranting at Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau and Nick Pisa on Twitter:

@NickPisa "Convinced you're a heartless tabloid journo, but wanted to remind you that you f*cked up people's lives:"

https://twitter.com/morsels/status/531514116528439297

@BLNadeau "Reminder: Your quest for the latest, greatest story damaged people. You should be ashamed of yourself:"

https://twitter.com/morsels/status/531513780900204545

@andreavogt "Wanted to remind you that your work seriously damaged many lives & you should be ashamed of yourself:"

https://twitter.com/morsels/status/531513534581338112

Morse proved what a buffoon he is by providing a link to Injustice in Perugia in his tweets to these journalists.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I have little hope that the new Netflix documentary will be balanced, otherwise Stephen Robert Morse would not have participated. It's as simple as that.

Also, bear in mind that Amanda Knox supports the documentary on social media which is basically a guarantee they will not be highlighting any evidence that incriminates her.

Regarding Stephen Robert Morse's tweets, in my view he is the last indicated person to lecture others about professionalism. It should be possible to disagree with others without getting personal, something the supporters of Amanda Knox sadly are incapable of.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:38 am   Post subject: NETFLIX PRODUCER STEPHEN MORSE   

This is his blog which was up as recently as July 25, 2016 but now deleted, presumably to hide his lack of neutrality. It's still available on Wayback Machine


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I pity the other directors involved if they aren't aware of how biased Stephen Robert Morse is. It could be they have be swayed by someone who spoke Italian and attended a trial. Reading the blog he failed to understand the sex game gone wrong was a very early and "private" theory that Mignini quickly discounted. Why he wonders do people care so much about one murder victim Meredith when there is so much other tragedy. Morse like those he claims to despise seems to be obsessed with AK. I note too his Twitter account is inactive .. Well damage control I guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:15 pm   Post subject: MORSEL TRIES THE LIBEL CARD   

He'd have a lot of deleting and 'splaining to do then, malvern since there are dozens still up here but here're some examples:

Slander, Libel
Barbie Nadeau; Satanic orgy


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

This is my take on the documentary West of Memphis and the media campaign to set the WM3 free:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... /#comments
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Everybody is entitled to their opinion so here is mine. Where is the evidence? The article doesn't list any evidence whatsoever. Even the few lines of Jesse's 'confession' has the police giving all the information. It is the police who is saying it all.

The police instructed Jesse for hours off tape, but even on tape it is so obvious. He gets so much wrong, and sometimes they literally say 'let me correct you'. They did the same with the Hutcheson's. Why not mention them? After all,the little boy saw it all so is that not important to mention?
http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/comple ... id=1886107

I am not a supporter, I have not seen any documentaries, but I spent quite a few hours to make some sense of the whole thing. I don't know who killed the 3 boys, but these 3 teenagers should never have been convicted. Jesse's confession wasn't even part of the trial for the other 2 and still they were found guilty. Based on what? And no, lie detector tests weren't part of the trial either although I think it is not so strange he failed if he was that crazy. You can't have it both. I also wouldn't be surprised if the police messed that up also.

I rather ignore all the police pressured witness statements, and just look at any real evidence. There isn't much so therefore I can't say who killed these boys. Yes, this also means I don't rule out that the 3 teens did it. However, I have a suspicion that somebody else did since in 90% of these cases it is usually someone close to the child who is the killer. I don't think these teens were close enough, and the way the killer(s) got rid of evidence by undressing the boys and putting clothes and bodies under water seems just a bit too smart for a few teens who were supposedly out of their mind. So they should look at the parents or step father (and his friend) in this case. Stupidly, they hardly did. How did that hair get in that tree?
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:23 pm   Post subject: WEST MEMPHIS 3   

Hi max, of course opposing views are welcome. Till The Machine responds to it here, this is my take on Jesse Miskelley.

First, while Misskelley's trial was separate, so too was Guede's, and statements of fact in one trial can in fact influence another. That's the reality.

Here's a site I like which gives an overview of the misconceptions promoted by the documentaries: West Memphis Three Facts

Quote:
JESSIE MISSKELLEY CONFESSED NUMEROUS TIMES:
The Paradise Lost and West of Memphis documentaries and the book and movie Devil's Knot completely leave out the fact Jessie Misskelley confessed to the murders numerous times both before and after he was convicted.

May 6, 1993: The morning after the murders, Jessie's friend, Buddy Lucas, stopped by Jessie's house. Buddy said Jessie told him he "hurt" some boys in West Memphis the night before. He then broke out in sweat, cried, and gave Buddy a used pair of sneakers (presumably the ones he wore to the crime scene).
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/b_lucas_interview.html

June 3, 1993: With consent from his father, Jessie was taken to the West Memphis Police Department for questioning. He was being questioned because he was a known friend of Damien Echols, who was a suspect in the murders. With additional written permission from his father, he was read his Miranda rights and given a polygraph exam, which he reportedly failed. The documentaries imply that Jessie was interrogated for 12 hours before confessing. That is a lie. Jessie arrived at that police station at 10:00am and confessed at 2:20pm. Only 2 1/2 hours of that time was spent in actual interrogation.
http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys- ... ne-3-1993/
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/jmtimelog.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmir.html

June 11, 1993: Many recent reports suggest Jessie immediately recanted. He did not. He confessed again to his own attorneys eight days later.
http://wm3truth.com/2012/04/jessie-miss ... e-11-1993/

February 8, 1994: He put his hand on a Bible and swore to his attorney (Dan Stidham) that he, Damien, and Jason committed the murders. Further, he told Stidham that he was drunk on Evan Williams whiskey during the murders and the broken bottle could be found where he threw it on the ground under a bridge in West Memphis on his way home from the crime scene. Stidham told prosecutors he would believe his client's confession if he could find that bottle. So Stidham, WMPD Inspector Gary Gitchell, and the prosecutors drove to West Memphis to look for it. They found a broken Evan Williams bottle in the exact area that Stidham indicated Jessie said it would be. According to Prosecutor John Fogleman, Stidham directed the group to search the I-40 underpass nearest to Wal-Mart (near the current sight of Kroger), and the men found the broken bottle in that location. Further corroborating this story is the fact that Jessie mentioned in this 2/8/94 confession that Vicki Hutcheson was the one who bought him Evan Williams whiskey on the day of the murders. When the attorneys called Hutcheson she confirmed that she did, indeed, buy Jessie a bottle of Evan Williams on the day of the murders.
http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys- ... ry-8-1994/
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/jm_2_8_ ... ement.html
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html

Here is a good retelling of the finding of the Evan Williams bottle by case researcher “St. Alphonse.” According to "St. Alphonse" this is the story as it was told to him by Prosecutor John Fogleman, Prosecutor Brent Davis, and WMPD Inspector Gary Gitchell:
http://midsouthjustice.org/archived_htm ... rd_com.htm

February 17, 1994: This time, Jessie confessed to the prosecutors. At the start of the confession the prosecutors noted that Jessie had not been promised any deals for his testimony. His attorneys begged him not to give this confession, but he gave it anyway.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:08 am   Post subject: NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY   

This summary of the documentary makes it very clear which way it will go: Amanda Knox
Quote:
The 2007 murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy has become a case study in the vagaries of crime and punishment. Seattle native Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted and — after four years in prison — acquitted for Kercher's murder, though just what happened on that November night remains shrouded in mystery. This gripping, atmospheric documentary from directors Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn revisits the story with unprecedented access to its key players and poses troubling questions as to why both the legal system and outside observers got so much wrong about the case.

Knox arrived in Perugia to start university that September. She was 20. Kercher was her roommate. Nothing about Knox's behaviour or girl-next-door charisma suggested she was capable of a vicious killing. This was what made her an enticing suspect: the notion that a femme fatale could appear so innocent. "Either I'm a psychopath in sheep's clothing," declares Knox, "or I'm you."

Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, one of the film's most fascinating subjects, regards Knox as "a little bit of an anarchist." Journalist Nick Pisa, who speaks candidly about the media's hunger for sensationalism, attests to the allure of painting Knox as a depraved sex maniac. As the trial progresses, the real Knox and her possible motives recede into the background.

Amanda Knox is true crime at its very best, digging deep into the details of a case we only think we know. It provides all the facts, brings us closer to understanding the biases of those involved, and leaves us to trouble over the many lingering ambiguities.

THOM POWERS
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks Ergon, but I have no intention to watch any documentaries. It helps me keep an open mind. Many of your links are not working by the way.

The problem with the case is that the police coached their witnesses. That is black on white, and once police starts doing that then the truth goes out the window. Sure everyone can cut and paste a few sentences from Jesse's statements and make them look guilty, but it is undeniable that he was coached so that is the end of that. It doesn't matter how many times he repeats the coached statements or if he puts his hand on the bible. It is rather sad actually that he still thought what the police told him would help him. Unlike Knox he fits the profile for somebody who is easily coerced. I already mentioned Aaron Hutcheson to show that there is a pattern. He too just repeats the sick fantasies that the police put in his head, and he still isn't sure if he was there or not. That is what happens when police starts coaching their witnesses.

They found the neck of the whiskey bottle after a year. It was not found at the crime scene. It was found under an overpass. That is not so strange to find broken glass under an overpass. Maybe he did drink whiskey there once or maybe not. There is no time stamp on it, no prints, no blood. Nothing. Vicki Hutcheson made up a crazy story that can't possibly have been true (for example Damien didn't drive any car) yet she passed her lie detector test. Go figure.

The sneakers that did not fit the prints at the crime scene? Why are these shoe prints not mentioned as evidence in the article? Because they do not fit any of the 3?

If you are going to mention Buddy Lucas then why leave out that he recanted and blamed the police for threatening him? Lucas is as slow as Jesse. Why leave that out also? Why also leave out the statements of Bennie Guy and Billy Stewart who state that Buddy Lucas admitted being one of the murderers. Not that I believe any of it but to give a fair overview of the case these things should be included.

There simply isn't enough evidence to convict anyone. People just want to choose sides, and then look for 'evidence' to confirm whatever they want to believe. The internet is full with people who are convinced one way or the other. Why is it so difficult to admit that there isn't enough? The hairs aren't enough either, although I don't believe the wind just took it when they were searching for the boys as Jacoby wants us to believe. Why didn't the wind take any hairs of the 3 when they were fighting the 3 little boys? A bit weird. I don't have any hairs in my shoelaces either. If the killers could strip them off their clothes then why would they still need to tie them up, and why in that peculiar way like they do in a slaughter house? Guess who worked in a slaughter house! And so on and so on. Plenty of room for speculations but that is all it is. I think it is case closed forever unfortunately.

Here is a pretty good overview of the whole thing.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... count.html
Top Profile 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks Max. A fascinating link. I knew very little about this case and probably don't know as much as I should do, even now. Whilst the link probably incorporates it's own element of bias, nevertheless I am impressed by the unemotive and detailed content. That's always a good start. Also I kept thinking about the case of Colin Stagg, here in the UK, who was charged by the police with the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common. He became a person of interest because, like Echolls, he was a bit of a loner and weirdo, and was entrapped by an undercover policewoman who befriended him and induced him into making a "sort of" confession as a quid pro quo for her becoming his girlfriend. There never was any real evidence against him and the trial judge threw the case out with some pretty trenchant criticism of police tactics. The case went cold until more advanced forensic techniques identified and led to the conviction of Robert Napper for the murder. Napper had already been convicted of a 1993 double killing.

There is much about the case of the West Memphis Three that rings alarm bells with me. Whether or not they are guilty it does look like a textbook case of how not to conduct a police investigation, particularly re Jesse Misskelley. It does rather look as though emotion has clouded judgement and I am perturbed, given his low IQ, that basic precautionary measures were not applied during his interrogations and that the basic contradictions in his testimony did not deem him to be unreliable as a witness.

On top of that no forensic evidence of any probative value whatsoever. What evidence against the other two was there other than Jesse's "confession"? Misskelley was tried separately and refused to testify against the other two at their trial. Oh dear, oh dear! As things stand I have no qualms about their release from custody. I don't care much for Alford pleas. To my recollection we don't have anything like that in the UK. It's basically a coercive tool that works as a face saving measure for the State when it knows the game is up. A re-trial should have been ordered and I am sure that they would have been acquitted, but I can't blame them for taking the Alford plea. Had I been in their shoes I probably would have as well. This is a pretty damning indictment of the american justice system and, it seems, may have become a useful workshop for the FAO playbook.

By the way the Shakespeare Quote isn't from Midsummer Night's Dream. It's Macbeth.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:51 pm   Post subject: WEST MEMPHIS THREE   

Hi max, they weren't my links, except for the West Memphis Three Facts I posted. Not my site either. Yes, some of the old links do not work, but the Jesse Misskelley confessions (plural) and other's statements are available elsewhere on the net if anyone wants to check the excerpts posted.

(BTW, my next post was about the Amanda Knox Netflix documentary, I wasn't critiquing the WM3 doc)

What intrigues me are the similarities between WM3 and Knox/Sollecito cases; documentaries and sites reflecting two competing points of view. The prosecution and the defense arguments reflected more on one side than the other. Judges and juries are the ones that have to choose between the two and decide innocence or guilt.

Since you mentioned the hairs on WM3 you are aware it was MtDNA testing and was a match for 1.5% of the population, therefore not definitively matched to Terry Hobbs? The hairs are therefore not probative so the documentary is flawed for that reason. Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, Meredith's on the knife blade, the mixed blood evidence, and many more are proof in the Meredith Kercher case.

There were other testimonies that convicted Echols, including the Hollingsworth family stating they had seen him near the crime scene covered in mud. (They're relatives of his then girlfriend and knew him well). There's the failed alibis and many lies. He also failed the polygraph test. He did boast to the softball girls he'd killed the boys (then perjured himself at trial saying he did not). Later, in a CBS interview, he admitted he 'might have, as a joke'.

As an aside about Buddy Lucas http://wm3truth.com/index.php/jessie-mi ... ay-6-1993/
Quote:
"Buddy Lucas recanted this statement the same day. The WMPD then gave him a polygraph test, which indicated Lucas was lying when he denied his earlier statement. Polygraph examiner Durham added in his report, “Following the polygraph test, the subject said he did not answer questions 3-5-7 in a truthful manner because he was afraid of what might happen to his family if he did testify in this case.”

So really, it comes down to whether one believes or does not, the WM3 received a fair trial. I had concerns about Jesse Misskelley just as I do about Brendan Dassey, mostly about them being minors at the time. But the weight of the evidence shows them being there, participating in the crime and therefore they did receive, maybe not a perfect trial, but a fair one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jape wrote:
Also I kept thinking about the case of Colin Stagg, here in the UK, who was charged by the police with the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common. He became a person of interest because, like Echolls, he was a bit of a loner and weirdo, and was entrapped by an undercover policewoman who befriended him and induced him into making a "sort of" confession as a quid pro quo for her becoming his girlfriend. There never was any real evidence against him and the trial judge threw the case out with some pretty trenchant criticism of police tactics. The case went cold until more advanced forensic techniques identified and led to the conviction of Robert Napper for the murder. Napper had already been convicted of a 1993 double killing.


I'm fairly sure that Colin Stagg, a man just as absolutely blameless as Christopher Jefferies, didn't give any kind of confession at all. Police picked on him simply because, like Chris, he lived on his own, which coppers think is odd, and he was known to walk his dog on Wimbledon Common. Fair enough, but they didn't do the 'implicate or eliminate' part properly. At the infamous picnic in Hyde Park, the honeytrap officer 'Lizzie', handpicked for her seductive potential, who had been engaging Colin in a bizarre lonelyhearts correspondence in which she claimed to get all turned on by murderers, told him she'd once fallen in with a group who cut a baby's throat in a secret ritual and said it was so exciting she wanted to find a man who did things like that. And Colin, caught by the directional microphones of the horde of undercover idiots hiding in the bushes, just said, not wanting to go there but of course trying not to put the pretty girl off, 'I think you're aiming a bit high.'

Later, in a bugged phone call, the ridiculous tease 'Lizzie' said what she really wanted was to hook up with the Wimbledon Common murderer and it would be such a turn-on if Colin was that man, and Colin, again not wanting to deter the only pretty girl who'd shown an interest in him but again unwilling to lie, said he was sorry but he didn't have anything to do with that. As the judge observed when throwing the case out, the police had nothing on Colin Stagg at all. They, and their tame psychologist Paul Britton, just made it all up.

The West Memphis Three, on the other hand, are quite strange and disturbed individuals. If the case against them isn't good then they have to go free, but they weren't mere ordinary bystanders pointlessly picked on by the cops as Colin Stagg and Christopher Jefferies were. And Colin and Chris never made anything remotely resembling a confession.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sorry Ergon, I didn't see your post about the Knox documentary. A 98.5% match is good enough for me. The hairs sure didn't match any of the three. Neither did the shoe prints. There isn't much crime scene evidence but why ignore that the little there is doesn't fit any of the 3? And again those polygraph tests? Half of West Memphis was a suspect if you believe the inexperienced detective.
http://www.jivepuppi.com/polygraph.html
And if we are to mention polygraphs then why not mention the report by Warren Holmes who states Misskelley only lied about his drugs use and was honest in his other answers including the questions:
9. Are you involved in the murder of those three boys?
Answer: "No."
10. Do you know who killed those three boys?
Answer: "No."
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/w_holmes_report.html

It takes too much space to analyze the testimony by Narlene Hollingsworth but it is full with contradictions. She said she saw Damien with his girlfriend (her niece). Then the prosecution tries to claim that the girlfriend was actually James Baldwin because he also has long hair, so they put a witness on the stand and claimed she had it 50% wrong. That she couldn't recognize her own niece. It is almost funny if it wasn't so sad.
http://www.jivepuppi.com/hollingsworth.html

Anyway, we shouldn't even be discussing testimony of this or that person, or always the 'confessions' by Jesse. It should have been corroborated with some evidence. We have testimony contradicted by other testimony, people who heard something from people who heard something, witnesses who admit years later they told a pack of lies, etc. The way the investigation was done was just horrible and nobody should state there is a strong case for anything. The trial was a witch hunt.
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/ar ... three-case
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Sorry Ergon, I didn't see your post about the Knox documentary. A 98.5% match is good enough for me. The hairs sure didn't match any of the three. Neither did the shoe prints. There isn't much crime scene evidence but why ignore that the little there is doesn't fit any of the 3? And again those polygraph tests? Half of West Memphis was a suspect if you believe the inexperienced detective.
http://www.jivepuppi.com/polygraph.html
And if we are to mention polygraphs then why not mention the report by Warren Holmes who states Misskelley only lied about his drugs use and was honest in his other answers including the questions:
9. Are you involved in the murder of those three boys?
Answer: "No."
10. Do you know who killed those three boys?
Answer: "No."
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/w_holmes_report.html

It takes too much space to analyze the testimony by Narlene Hollingsworth but it is full with contradictions. She said she saw Damien with his girlfriend (her niece). Then the prosecution tries to claim that the girlfriend was actually James Baldwin because he also has long hair, so they put a witness on the stand and claimed she had it 50% wrong. That she couldn't recognize her own niece. It is almost funny if it wasn't so sad.
http://www.jivepuppi.com/hollingsworth.html

Anyway, we shouldn't even be discussing testimony of this or that person, or always the 'confessions' by Jesse. It should have been corroborated with some evidence. We have testimony contradicted by other testimony, people who heard something from people who heard something, witnesses who admit years later they told a pack of lies, etc. The way the investigation was done was just horrible and nobody should state there is a strong case for anything. The trial was a witch hunt.
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/ar ... three-case


Fair enough, max. This might well be another case where people will be arguing the facts and their views on that for some time to come. Certainly the way the American justice system treats poor, black, or mentally challenged defendants is enough to make any one pause and question every thing.

I'm just finished watching this excellent TV series, The Night Of. It was gritty and brutal, but, also had a hopeful view, of the system trying to get at the truth. Yet in the end, it shows also how much it damages people. No matter what each person's personal experience or viewpoint might be, no matter how cynical I myself can be, I have to trust the system to some degree, otherwise I would be consumed by each and every life's injustice. There has to be a balance between justice for the victim, and justice for the defendant. That's me of course, and I respect the opposing view.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:07 am   Post subject: KNOX NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY   

The Vanity Fair Website has just published a review of the upcoming Amanda Knox Documentary.
Quote:
"Most astonishing of all: last July, Blackhurst and McGinn also managed to persuade Giuliano Mignini, the Italian prosecutor who brought the tabloid-ready case to trial, to appear in their documentary Amanda Knox, which will premiere at the Toronto Film Festival before being released by Netflix on September 30. It is this last get that offers viewers one of the most astonishing scenes, when he blandly reveals an especially imaginative scenario. Amanda’s motive for the murder of a girl she scarcely knew, says the prosecutor, was her “lack of morality,” her desire for “pleasure at any cost,” which led her to wield a large knife “that teases then plunges” into her roommate’s neck.

Despite such lurid theorizing, Amanda Knox, unlike the bulk of nearly a decade’s worth of global press coverage around the case, refuses to editorialize, praise, or rebuke any of its protagonists, and that objective stance is precisely the strength of the film."

"...the central characters of the drama feel free to say almost anything that’s on their minds. The results are illuminating. From Mignini, recalling his thoughts when evidence (which turned out to be tainted) supposedly revealed Sollecito’s DNA on the victim’s bra clasp, found only after 46 days on the floor: “I remember colleagues complimenting me and saying, ‘At this point there’s no hope for the two of them.’ . . . Complete strangers walked up to me and congratulated me and asked to shake my hand. It gives me satisfaction . . .”

And this is my point. At a certain point in any case, all we have are competing narratives, and no book, no documentary, comes up with the "truth".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:22 pm   Post subject: DAVID ANDERSON AND NIGEL SCOTT WRITE A BOOK   

As if on cue, along comes a book from David C Anderson and Nigel P Scott, THREE FALSE CONVICTIONS, MANY LESSONS: The Psychopathology of Unjust Prosecutions to be released September.
Quote:
A new perspective on why false charges occur, proceed and persist which looks at the roles of psychopathology, confirmation bias, false confessions, the media and internet among other causes. Puts lack of empathy at the fore in terms of police, prosecutors and others whilst considering a wide range of other psychopathological aspects of false convictions. Based on first-hand knowledge or involvement.

What drives false but serious criminal charges and why do police and prosecutors often persist against those wrongly in the dock? As this book shows—by looking at three high profile cases, those of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (Italy), Stefan Kiszko (UK) and Darlie Routier (USA)—motive forces are a mind-set in which psychopathy (what the authors charitably term ‘constitutional negative empathy’) may be present and in which confirmation bias (the need to reinforce a decision once made or lose face) plays a large part.

So the authors examine the psychopathy and 'constitutional negative empathy' of police and prosecutors but not that of the accused or themselves, cool. David Anderson being the man who wrote to the BBC ombudsman trying to get John Kercher Jr. fired because he thought he was Harry Rag in disguise and Nigel Scott being the person who escorted the accused murderer Sollecito to Meredith's grave and posted a picture on Twitter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: DAVID ANDERSON AND NIGEL SCOTT WRITE A BOOK   

Ergon wrote:
As if on cue, along comes a book from David C Anderson and Nigel P Scott, THREE FALSE CONVICTIONS, MANY LESSONS: The Psychopathology of Unjust Prosecutions to be released September.
Quote:
A new perspective on why false charges occur, proceed and persist which looks at the roles of psychopathology, confirmation bias, false confessions, the media and internet among other causes. Puts lack of empathy at the fore in terms of police, prosecutors and others whilst considering a wide range of other psychopathological aspects of false convictions. Based on first-hand knowledge or involvement.

What drives false but serious criminal charges and why do police and prosecutors often persist against those wrongly in the dock? As this book shows—by looking at three high profile cases, those of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (Italy), Stefan Kiszko (UK) and Darlie Routier (USA)—motive forces are a mind-set in which psychopathy (what the authors charitably term ‘constitutional negative empathy’) may be present and in which confirmation bias (the need to reinforce a decision once made or lose face) plays a large part.

So the authors examine the psychopathy and 'constitutional negative empathy' of police and prosecutors but not that of the accused or themselves, cool. David Anderson being the man who wrote to the BBC ombudsman trying to get John Kercher Jr. fired because he thought he was Harry Rag in disguise and Nigel Scott being the person who escorted the accused murderer Sollecito to Meredith's grave and posted a picture on Twitter.


Anyone paying £22.50 for this psychobabble would need their head testing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

My article about Bob Woffinden's blog article about Rudy Guede and the Meredith Kercher case has been posted on TJMK:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... /#comments
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 2:53 am   Post subject: ON PSYCHOPATHY   

Another interesting article on psychopathy in Forensics Magazine
Psychopaths Feel Fear, But Not Danger
Seth Augenstein
Quote:
The belief is that they (psychopaths) have little to no regard for the rest of humanity around them. A mask disguises a void with no capacity for empathy or guilt.

The popular belief that that this complete disregard for others even extends to themselves: that they don’t feel fear.

But the latest research from a Dutch university has found psychopaths to function a bit differently than traditionally believed.

Psychopaths do indeed feel fear – they just can’t process immediate threats as competently as others do, according to the study published in the Psychological Bulletin.
...
FEAR, JUST NO FEAR CONDITIONING

But the new study indicates that the portrait of psychopathy is overly simplistic.

Psychopaths have deficiencies in their amygdala, as demonstrated in a lengthy series of studies. According to the literature, this has an impact on “threat conditioning” – most commonly known as “fear conditioning.” Consequently, psychopaths can’t as easily understand what pressing dangers there are around them.

But they do have the capacity, in the long-term, to feel concern and worry for their own safety, the authors contend.

Hmm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Couple of stories about the soon-to-be released Amanda Knox documentary:

Freeing 'Foxy Knoxy': Why People Are So Obsessed with Amanda Knox

Kate Leaver wrote:
But why wasn't Meredith Kercher—the one who lost her life that night in November, 2007—the focus of her own murder trial?

"The victims rarely are, in highly publicized crimes," Dr Berrill says. "Usually we focus on the people being charged with a crime. Some famous ones come to mind, I'm thinking of Oscar Pistorius or OJ Simpson. When people want to know more about the defendant, they certainly attract more attention than the victim. People are bored, you know. People's lives are mundane. When these celebrity-style cases emerge, it's like hooking into a new soap opera. People develop some sort of weird transient attachment to the defendant, whether they hate or love them. It's entertainment, really—that's all it is."


Kate Leaver wrote:
Dr Stevie Simkin, a professor at the University of Winchester, agrees that the demonization of Amanda Knox had a lot to do with gender—just as he believes that we speak about Meredith Kercher in terms of purity and gentility because we can't resist forcing women into archetypal roles. He investigated this for his book, Cultural Constructions of the Femme Fatale: From Pandora's Box to Amanda Knox.

"The femme fatale is a fascinating and terrifying figure for the patriarchy. From the start, Knox was seen as deviant and 'deviant' behaviour mobilizes certain attitudes and assumptions," he says. "Violent male offenders are understood to be conforming to well established patterns of behaviour, even if their crimes provoke feelings of anger, horror, and revulsion. Agents of female violence have not only broken the law but transgressed the 'rules' of what is understood to be acceptable female behaviour."

That transgression is what originally made Amanda Knox newsworthy. She was an educated, attractive, all-American student whose "angelic" appearance didn't match her alleged actions. She was, at every turn, not the woman society expected her to be. And that comes right down to her behavior during the investigation of Kercher's murder: she allegedly did a cartwheel outside the interrogation room at the police station and was famously papped kissing Sollecito in the street after Kercher's body was found. (In an ABC interview, she denied doing cartwheels but admitted to doing the splits.)


Kate Leaver wrote:
"The great void in the story for me remains the figure of Meredith Kercher," says Dr Simkin. "This human being died a terrible, terrible death. But then she was reduced to another archetype: the helpless female victim. Although she seemed to be conventional in terms of her own behaviour and attitudes, the press found it useful to construct her as the 'virgin' to Knox's 'whore'—that binary, again, goes all the way back to the Virgin Mary, the antidote to sinful Eve. So the real Meredith Kercher was lost, just as Knox says in her memoir that the 'real' her was lost in all the press coverage."

‘OJ: Made In America,’ ‘Amanda Knox’ Among International Documentary Association’s Screening Series Lineup
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Please join in tweeting to Leaver correcting the errors in her article re exoneration.

picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: https://twitter.com/broadly/status/771732002663899136
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Couple of stories about the soon-to-be released Amanda Knox documentary:

Freeing 'Foxy Knoxy': Why People Are So Obsessed with Amanda Knox

Kate Leaver wrote:
But why wasn't Meredith Kercher—the one who lost her life that night in November, 2007—the focus of her own murder trial?

"The victims rarely are, in highly publicized crimes," Dr Berrill says. "Usually we focus on the people being charged with a crime. Some famous ones come to mind, I'm thinking of Oscar Pistorius or OJ Simpson. When people want to know more about the defendant, they certainly attract more attention than the victim. People are bored, you know. People's lives are mundane. When these celebrity-style cases emerge, it's like hooking into a new soap opera. People develop some sort of weird transient attachment to the defendant, whether they hate or love them. It's entertainment, really—that's all it is."


Kate Leaver wrote:
Dr Stevie Simkin, a professor at the University of Winchester, agrees that the demonization of Amanda Knox had a lot to do with gender—just as he believes that we speak about Meredith Kercher in terms of purity and gentility because we can't resist forcing women into archetypal roles. He investigated this for his book, Cultural Constructions of the Femme Fatale: From Pandora's Box to Amanda Knox.

"The femme fatale is a fascinating and terrifying figure for the patriarchy. From the start, Knox was seen as deviant and 'deviant' behaviour mobilizes certain attitudes and assumptions," he says. "Violent male offenders are understood to be conforming to well established patterns of behaviour, even if their crimes provoke feelings of anger, horror, and revulsion. Agents of female violence have not only broken the law but transgressed the 'rules' of what is understood to be acceptable female behaviour."

That transgression is what originally made Amanda Knox newsworthy. She was an educated, attractive, all-American student whose "angelic" appearance didn't match her alleged actions. She was, at every turn, not the woman society expected her to be. And that comes right down to her behavior during the investigation of Kercher's murder: she allegedly did a cartwheel outside the interrogation room at the police station and was famously papped kissing Sollecito in the street after Kercher's body was found. (In an ABC interview, she denied doing cartwheels but admitted to doing the splits.)


Kate Leaver wrote:
"The great void in the story for me remains the figure of Meredith Kercher," says Dr Simkin. "This human being died a terrible, terrible death. But then she was reduced to another archetype: the helpless female victim. Although she seemed to be conventional in terms of her own behaviour and attitudes, the press found it useful to construct her as the 'virgin' to Knox's 'whore'—that binary, again, goes all the way back to the Virgin Mary, the antidote to sinful Eve. So the real Meredith Kercher was lost, just as Knox says in her memoir that the 'real' her was lost in all the press coverage."

‘OJ: Made In America,’ ‘Amanda Knox’ Among International Documentary Association’s Screening Series Lineup


Rumpole, thanks a lot. No mentions of the paid PR? the money trail was huge.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 1:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
Please join in tweeting to Leaver correcting the errors in her article re exoneration.


Good idea. There could be a lot of these in the next several weeks. A way to go would be a post listing say 100 common media "mistakes". Really looking forward to Ergons notes or review.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I think it needs to be made absolutely clear that Cassation established that Knox was 100% there when Meredith was murdered, there's strong suspicion Sollecito was and Guede had two accomplices.
I managed to convince a couple of posters on IMDB that there was more to the case than what was being reported, simply by quoting Cassation's report and showing the irregularities.
The fact that Knox was there should be an attention getter to anyone checking out Meredith's case in a cursory impartial manner, so that's the info we need to get out imo.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline whatswisdom


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:52 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Please post youtube comments and imdb comments and include a link to the wiki site.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Have you folks seen this Daily Mail article about the doc - including two trailers with AK?

'Either I'm a psychopath in sheep's clothing, or I am you': Amanda Knox breaks down in first trailers for Netflix documentary

As for the Leaver article, I found myself agreeing with comments made by Dr Simkin and Dr Berrill, but yes obviously there are often if not always some mistakes with respect to the actual case facts in these kind of articles.

Edit: TM had posted a link to this trailer (which the DM article also contains split to two 1-minute trailers on their website) on ORG:

Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:53 am   Post subject: NETFLIX TRAILER   

Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5SFjSxzS7M

(YouTube blocks replaying)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Knox cashing in now

some production



NETFLIX $$$$$
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

whatswisdom wrote:
Please post youtube comments and imdb comments and include a link to the wiki site.


Quote:
Meredith should be remembered. But this case was botched so badly by investigators and ALL signs pointed to Rudy Guede. I'm the type who judges people as guilty until proven innocent, but after reading up on nearly all the evidence on this case, it is clear to anyone who has actually looked at the documented evidence that Amanda Knox was the victim of a witch hunt. What they had against her was barely circumstantial - any legitimate prosecutor would never have charged her because there was no proof that she was involved. Add in the forensic mistakes - it was sickening to see them try to pin it on someone else.

Guede's DNA and bloody handprint were all over the room and the body, Meredith's blood was tracked into the bathroom and Guede's excrement was in the toilet. He was with the victim at her residence at the time of death and he lied multiple times. It wasn't until weeks later that he said, Oh, Amanda and her boyfriend were also there. This was after initially saying he saw a man speaking Italian standing over the body holding a knife before fleeing. This was also after he, himself, fled the country immediately after murdering her and being extradited back, after finding him with a knife matching the murder weapon.

Evidence against Amanda? They interrogated her for days, keeping her sleep deprived, and then asked her "hypothetically" what she would do if she'd been at the murder scene. She said she would have probably heard screams loud enough to make her cover her ears. Then they wrote up her statement as fact, in extremely sophisticated Italian with a lot of police language, and refuse to let her leave until she signs it. This is after approximately five days of exhaustion and having rotating interrogators coming in and out of the interrogation room. That and a tiny amount of DNA found on a bra clasp were the only links to her being a potential killer. This bra clasp that had DNA from three other people and was not collected from the scene until six weeks after the murder. The only other DNA trace was a kitchen knife at Raffael's that had trace amounts of blood on it and Amanda's DNA - a place where Amanda couldn't potentially cooked and used the knife. And the trace blood was proven by DNA experts that it was not Meredith's blood. And then they discovered that the knife didn't even match the knife wounds on the body or the bloody knife outline from the pillowcase! This is a woman who spent four years of her life in jail because of crooked lawyers, inept police, and such flimsy circumstantial evidence that it's sickening to think anyone could be convicted for it.

Their forensic people weren't all in forensic gear, they tracked blood and other evidence throughout the house. They could've opened it up to the public and not have had as much cross-contamination as they had.

Meredith never deserved what happened to her - and her killer deserves to rot in jail. Instead they tried so hard to pin it on two people who were not in the apartment at the time and let the real killer out of jail after a few years. He will kill again when he gets out. That type of homicide was so extreme, someone else will fall victim to him when he gets out soon. That's the truly terrifying thing


My response:
Quote:
Meredith should be remembered
Yes she should and is by those who are interested in justice.

But this case was botched so badly by investigators

No it wasn't. Specify how it was and how the same team did such a great job on Guede.
ALL signs pointed to Rudy Guede.
Completely untrue ALL signs pointed to all three's involvement.
I'm the type who judges people as guilty until proven innocent, but after reading up on nearly all the evidence on this case, it is clear to anyone who has actually looked at the documented evidence that Amanda Knox was the victim of a witch hunt. What they had against her was barely circumstantial - any legitimate prosecutor would never have charged her because there was no proof that she was involved. Add in the forensic mistakes - it was sickening to see them try to pin it on someone else.
No she was convicted on more evidence than was used to Convict Scott Petersen and serial killer Rose West, on physical and circumstantial evidence and she was in no way the victim of anything.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence


Guede's DNA and bloody handprint were all over the room and the body
No they weren't they found a single palm print of Guede and he was convicted on less DNA evidence (five samples) than Knox was. (Six samples)

Evidence against Amanda? They interrogated her for days, keeping her sleep deprived, and then asked her "hypothetically" what she would do if she'd been at the murder scene
Completely untrue, Knox arrived at the police station shortly before 11 pm, the interpreter arrived at 12:30 am and Knox's own signed statement was signed at 1.45 am, meaning she confessed after an hour and 15 minutes. Knox herself testified that she was fed and given camomile tea.

No the DNA was absolutely proven to be Meredith's nor was it blood DNA.

Seven courts in total including the acquitting court concluded that Guede had two accomplices.
Supreme court also states that Knox was 100% there when Meredith was murdered and that there's strong suspicion that Sollecito was there too. It really doesn't take a genius to figure out who Guede's two accomplices were.
All the court transcripts are available translated. There is no doubt that Knox and Sollecito got away with it.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

The truth will never be silenced and will come to light in Meredith's case one day. She and her family are the only victims here, not Amanda Knox who remains a convicted criminal felon to this day.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2967008/board/thread/247697485?p=1
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Incidentally someone put out a thread on the Knox Netflix documentary on IMDB's Making a Murderer board.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/board/thread/261250347
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:55 am   Post subject: Re: NETFLIX TRAILER   

Ergon wrote:
Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5SFjSxzS7M

(YouTube blocks replaying)


Oh does it? Not here in Finland, I tested before posting and just now, and it plays ok for me so didn't realise it might act like that on the other side of the pond.

I noticed, by the way, that there are several similar trailers in the youtube by Netflix US & Canada, Netflix America Latina etc. Here's a link to a listing of some of them:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... manda+knox

Here's an Italian version (link also below), it's the same trailer as in English + some talking - in Italian- for the last 40-50 seconds about other films:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCjraf2BMD0
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Adding these two "Believe Her "and "Suspect Her" versions of the trailers here, too, for the posterity:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NueLjUNB-GM



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r8LG_lCbac
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:20 pm   Post subject: JON BENET RAMSEY   

Jon Benet Ramsey's brother Burke will be giving an interview for the first time. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/fr ... k-i-did-it
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:54 pm   Post subject: MARIO SPEZI   

Mario Spezi, who covered the Monster Of Florence case, is dead at age 71. RIP

Corriere Della Sera
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: MARIO SPEZI   

Ergon wrote:
Mario Spezi, who covered the Monster Of Florence case, is dead at age 71. RIP

Corriere Della Sera


Smoked too much, I should think. But not a bad innings.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:03 pm   Post subject: PRESS RELEASE RE NETFIX DOCUMENTARY   

For The Press

September 09, 2016: The Netflix documentary "Amanda Knox" opens at the Toronto International Film Festival today [1]Amanda Knox. While claiming to be a balanced perspective its producer Stephen Robert Morse had made inflammatory reports about the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (who was interviewed by the film makers) of "having been convicted of crimes" (he was acquitted) and being "a power-hungry prosecutor running the show". Requests to producer Mette Heide on August 13, 2016 for comment about his bias were not replied to by this time.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Wasn't a fan of Spezi but his family and friends have my sympathies.

In other news state of Wisconsin are appealing Duffin.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE RE NETFIX DOCUMENTARY   

Ergon wrote:
For The Press

September 09, 2016: The Netflix documentary "Amanda Knox" opens at the Toronto International Film Festival today [1]Amanda Knox. While claiming to be a balanced perspective its producer Stephen Robert Morse had made inflammatory reports about the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (who was interviewed by the film makers) of "having been convicted of crimes" (he was acquitted) and being "a power-hungry prosecutor running the show". Requests to producer Mette Heide on August 13, 2016 for comment about his bias were not replied to by this time.

Thanks Ergon good to know Morse can't hide from his dishonest involvement, A little too much bragging and slowness to erase evidence. This Tiff premier with the 'star guest' seems to be missing the mark and drawing lots of criticism.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Parenthetically, I'd like to add my opinion that the WM3 are guilty. Please refer to The Machine's recent remarks at TJMK. Thank you.

Amanda Knox says that she was tossed in a dark place and was scared, or so scared, or similar. This is her same sick act of projection to make herself seem like the true victim. It was Meredith who was left in a dark place to die.

IMHO, this Netflix project is obscene, yet more innocence fraud from Netflix.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I read the Daily Mail article and about 100 comments. One thing you might want to keep an eye on if you post there is people saying Knox was found "innocent" by the Supreme Court, with the quotation marks in the original, as if they were quoting from the report.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I'm on my phone but variety review of Knox's Netflix makeover is out and basically gushes how awesome knifey is and what "a piece of work" Mignini is and how sharkish and addicted to the camera Pisa is and how independent forensic experts showed how the"few strands' of DNA were random and inconclusive, and how Mignini and Pisa only open up and hang themselves in their own words, as they thought they would be portrayed sympathetically and *falls asleep from sheer boredom *
Basically PR flavoured kool aid just as we predicted.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I agree with Ergon. I wish Mignini hadn't participated. Sigh.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And I agree with both of you, Ergon and JohnQ, with regard to Mignini. The film seems to be all PR and BS. Like many of you have pointed out here.

Inside Netflix’s ‘Amanda Knox’ Documentary: Uncovered Evidence and New Revelations

Ergon, Knox was supposed to be in Toronto for the premiere, did you by any chance happen to see her?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/09/amanda-knox-heads-to-toronto-to-promote-murder-documentary-based-on-her-trial/









Daily Mail also covered this landing to Toronto:

Amanda Knox's boyfriend steals limelight dressed in bold cheetah-print pants and Letterman jacket as pair land in Toronto to promote new Netflix documentary


Last edited by Rumpole on Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Toronto Film Review: ‘Amanda Knox’

The worst and silliest bits:

Chief Film Critic Owen Gleiberman wrote:
A documentary about the notorious murder case reveals the guilty party. It wasn't Amanda Knox — it was tabloid journalism.


Chief Film Critic Owen Gleiberman wrote:
In the interviews with Nick Pisa and the lead prosecutor in the case, Guiliano Mignini, it’s clear that both men opened up because they thought they were being recorded sympathetically (actually, the sharkish Pisa just comes off as addicted to being on camera), but what the filmmakers do is let these two hang themselves with their own words. Mignini is a real piece of work. He compares himself to Sherlock Holmes, but what that comes down to is that he built his entire “case” on hunches. “Immediately, I could tell it was a staged break-in,” he says. Really? How? And he’s so openly accusatory of Amanda for what he regards as her lack of sexual morals that the case becomes an unhinged Italian Catholic psychodrama, with Amanda as the girl who must be guilty because she’s guilty of “sin.”


Chief Film Critic Owen Gleiberman wrote:
Was there ever physical evidence? There were wisps of DNA, which independent forensic investigators, near the end of the four years that Knox spent in prison, determined to be probably random and entirely inconclusive. But there was hard DNA evidence — and circumstantial evidence, too — that incriminated Rudy Guede, the local convicted burglar who, along with Knox and Sollecito, was found guilty of killing Meredith Kercher. (All indications are that he committed the crime alone.) The direct evidence used to convict Knox and her boyfriend wasn’t just flimsy — it was all but nonexistent. Yet “Amanda Knox” presents a definitive dissection of how they were really convicted by a festering court of global tabloid-media mythology. Amanda Knox may have been railroaded, but it’s reality that was damned.



.........................................
Toronto Film Review: 'Amanda Knox'

Reviewed at Toronto Film Festival, September 9, 2016. MPAA Rating: Not rated. Running time: 92 MIN.

Production

A Netflix release of a Netflix Original Documentary production. Producers: Rod Blackhurst, Matt Heide, Brian McGinn, Stephen Robert. Executive producers: Ben Cotner, Adam Del Deo, Lisa Nishimura.

Crew

Directors: Rod Blackhurst, Brian McGinn. Screenplay: McGinn, Matthew Hamachek. Camera: Blackhurts. Editor: Hamachek.

With

Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Nick Pisa, Guiliano Mignini.
--------------------
(Note: It says Giuliana Mignini on the Toronto Film Review page but I changed it to Giuliano above.)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:11 am   Post subject: NETFLIX REVIEW   

Here's another review Screen Daily which isn't jarringly awful in repeating the one note "tabloid journalism" line. Because honestly, that's neither a unique nor original line.

"The lingering question mark over Knox’s guilt or innocence is what makes her such a troubling figure...Indeed, the film carries such a sense that this is Knox’s side of the story, and her experience of events, that the violent death of Meredith Kercher is not quite given the weight it deserves. Tellingly, Kercher’s family are only seen in press conference footage...We may never know what happened on the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder but McGinn and Blackhurst seem to side with those who believe that Rudy Guede was the guilty party... In many respects, Knox is no more sympathetic a figure than she was nine years ago.."

They are being kind.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks Rumpole.

Here's a review by Allan Hunter in today's Screen Daily: 'Amanda Knox': Toronto Review His view is basically the same as that of his colleague, Owen Gleiberman, even though he is a bit more skeptical towards Knox.

Allan Hunter wrote:
Knox has rarely seemed a sympathetic figure, and that has played a huge part in public perceptions of her character. A substantial new interview with her and the decision to diligently focus on the facts means that, at the very least, McGinn and Blackhurst are prepared to give her a fair hearing. Indeed, the film carries such a sense that this is Knox’s side of the story, and her experience of events, that the violent death of Meredith Kercher is not quite given the weight it deserves. Tellingly, Kercher’s family are only seen in press conference footage.


Allan Hunter wrote:
In many respects, Knox is no more sympathetic a figure than she was nine years ago, but perhaps the film allows us to be no longer blinded by all the fury that surrounded the case.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon, I see you beat me to it. :)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Ergon, Knox was supposed to be in Toronto for the premiere, did you by any chance happen to see her?

I was hiding behind the couch all day, Rumpole hbc)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

On a different note, Roberta Bruzzone thinks that Rudy Guede won't get a review of his case. Well, at this point, who cares what Roberta Bruzzone thinks or says, after she has shifted her stance on the Meredith Kercher murder and changed her position on the issue of Sollecito's guilt - a complete U-turn.

It's interesting to note that Rudy Guede is now using the same platform as Sollecito - the Giallo magazine - for spreading his point of view. ;)

August 30, 2016

Rudy Guede / News, asked for new trial: waiting for the judges' decision (today, August 30, 2016)

After nine years Rudy Guede still makes himself heard: the Ivorian sentenced to 16 years for the murder of Meredith Kercher has in fact requested a review of the process and is waiting for the decision of the judges. […] Now they [Knox and Sollecito] are waiting to know whether the process will have a revision, as requested by Rudy Guede who has always proclaimed his innocence. [,,,]

In the last week, the name of Rudy Guede, the Ivorian accused of murdering the young British student Meredith Kercher in the house in Perugia in November nine years ago, was back in the [crime] news. The reason is due to the desire of the young man (and his defense) to request a review of the process. In regards to it, on the pages of the weekly magazine Giallo, a few weeks ago, he had issued statements through his spokesman. The 29 year-old Ivorian, definitely convicted to 16 years as the only culprit of Meredith's murder, continues to proclaim his innocence and firmly believes he was wrongly convicted. For this reason, he hopes that the Court of Florence can at least accept the petition for review in order to discuss his case. […]

Rudy Guede has decided to play his last card and although he is very confident about justice and the institutions that represent it, the criminologist Roberta Bruzzone wouldn't be so positive about it. On the pages of the same weekly [magazine] published by Andrea Biavardi, commenting on the case, she explained: 'The Ivorian today, unlike in the past, points his finger firmly at Amanda whom he claims to have recognized that bloody night."

And on the hopes of Rudy Guede she stated/asserted: ‘I think the review/revision request will not be accepted and there will be no further trial.’ A pessimistic picture that is exposed by the criminologist, who has noted: 'Guede has no hope given the abundant amount of traces (biological or otherwise) related to him found at the crime scene."


IL SUSSIDIARIO
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Right now, all attention is on Amanda, she traveled to Toronto to attend the premiere of 'Amanda Knox', but Sollecito hasn't been sitting still, either: on Sep. 1, he was seen mixing and mingling with the Radicals (again).

Radicals, Sollecito: jailed and treated like junk (VIDEO)

I'm here to relate my experience, I joined the party three years ago

ANSA
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Thanks Ergon, but I have no intention to watch any documentaries. It helps me keep an open mind. Many of your links are not working by the way.

The problem with the case is that the police coached their witnesses. That is black on white, and once police starts doing that then the truth goes out the window. Sure everyone can cut and paste a few sentences from Jesse's statements and make them look guilty, but it is undeniable that he was coached so that is the end of that. It doesn't matter how many times he repeats the coached statements or if he puts his hand on the bible. It is rather sad actually that he still thought what the police told him would help him. Unlike Knox he fits the profile for somebody who is easily coerced. I already mentioned Aaron Hutcheson to show that there is a pattern. He too just repeats the sick fantasies that the police put in his head, and he still isn't sure if he was there or not. That is what happens when police starts coaching their witnesses.

They found the neck of the whiskey bottle after a year. It was not found at the crime scene. It was found under an overpass. That is not so strange to find broken glass under an overpass. Maybe he did drink whiskey there once or maybe not. There is no time stamp on it, no prints, no blood. Nothing. Vicki Hutcheson made up a crazy story that can't possibly have been true (for example Damien didn't drive any car) yet she passed her lie detector test. Go figure.


Yeah or maybe he threw it there the night he prevented the escape of three children while Echols and Baldwin raped, mutilated and murdered them.
Miskelley confessed several times, while on the way to prison and once in prison while his lawyer pleaded with him not to. His confession is supported by evidence and he was in no way coerced. Echols is a psychopath and all three are guilty imo.
More on Misskelley's confession can be found here.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161470
Quote:
The sneakers that did not fit the prints at the crime scene? Why are these shoe prints not mentioned as evidence in the article? Because they do not fit any of the 3?

If you are going to mention Buddy Lucas then why leave out that he recanted and blamed the police for threatening him? Lucas is as slow as Jesse. Why leave that out also? Why also leave out the statements of Bennie Guy and Billy Stewart who state that Buddy Lucas admitted being one of the murderers. Not that I believe any of it but to give a fair overview of the case these things should be included.

Why rehash on the internet what was already thoroughly covered by two separate courts of law and failed to convince two juries?
Quote:
There simply isn't enough evidence to convict anyone. People just want to choose sides, and then look for 'evidence' to confirm whatever they want to believe. The internet is full with people who are convinced one way or the other. Why is it so difficult to admit that there isn't enough? The hairs aren't enough either, although I don't believe the wind just took it when they were searching for the boys as Jacoby wants us to believe. Why didn't the wind take any hairs of the 3 when they were fighting the 3 little boys? A bit weird. I don't have any hairs in my shoelaces either. If the killers could strip them off their clothes then why would they still need to tie them up, and why in that peculiar way like they do in a slaughter house? Guess who worked in a slaughter house!

There was enough evidence to convince two separate juries BARD, the only standard that's required by any court and that's pretty much it, really. Focusing on what one may personally perceive to be weak aspects as if the case hinged on such things, rather than focus on the totality of the case isn't logical imo.

Quote:
And so on and so on. Plenty of room for speculations but that is all it is. I think it is case closed forever unfortunately.

Unless Echols murders again of course. Then again maybe 18 years was a sufficient deterrent for the depraved pos. Time will tell.

Here is a pretty good overview of the whole thing.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... count.html[/quote]

Or one could avail of all available primary sources which imo are better.

Interesting thrown together youtube doc here though for those who like that sorta thing, which shows how Echols is nowhere near the innocent railroaded goth kid from the wrong side of town, as fawning celebs and polemic media accounts would have us believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMEIb7x2Ifg

Disgraceful that they were released but they aren't fooling me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile, I watched the video. Thank you.

Wow. No wonder Echols and Amanda Knox are BFF.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Raffaele Sollecito's compensation hearing has been set for 20th Oct 2016 at the third chambers of the Florence Court. Prosecutor Crini has applied to have the hearing transferred to Perugia and disputes the application for €516,000 - the maximum - for wrongful imprisonment, on the grounds of Sollecito's conduct before his arrest.

http://corrieredellumbria.corr.it/news/ ... rcher.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

More news:

[excerpt]516 thousand euro. Meanwhile, on October 20th before the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Florence will start the pr ocess for the claim for wrongful imprisonment brought by Raffaele Sollecito. And 'the accounts of the evening, in every sense. Lawyers Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno, who assist Raffaele, ask the maximum allowed by law for "the suffering, the maximum degree" in four years from innocent cell are worth five hundred and sixteen thousand euro. Sollecito will still be in front of the Prosecutor General Alexander Crini (who led the call-bis, getting the sentence then cleared definitively by the Supreme judges). It promises to be a difficult game, shots of "allegations" to investigators who followed the investigations and rebounds with the behavior during the various stages of the behavior of the former Apulian student to student.
http://tuttoggi.info/amanda-knox-due-vo ... ne/357576/



What can be said about his behaviour?

Lesser Facts

At the Questura, he encouraged Amanda to climb all over his lap as they pulled faces at each other, made lip-smacking noises and was overheard teaching her Italian insults.

He introduced himself to the British friends of Meredith saying, 'My girlfriend found the body.'

He told Mirror journalist, Kate Mansey, 'My girlfriend found the body; there was blood everywhere'.

He took one of the knives in his collection to the Questura with him.

In his initial statement to the police he claimed he was surfing the net until 3:00 am, Amanda came in at 1:00 am and that he has spoken to his father at 23:00 pm. There was no electronic activity found between 21:30 - when an autodownload of Naruto occurred, from a file-sharing programme, which doesn't need the physical presence of its recipient (think of Dropbox) - until apx 5:30 next morning when some adrenaline-charged heavy rock and grunge was played and Raffaele received his text messages from the night before, proving there had been no signal until then. He told police he and Amanda had slept through until at least 10:00am.

Then again, in Italy, defendants are allowed to lie.

He insisted on finishing his evening meal despite being summonsed by the police to attend the Questura with alacrity.

In his next police statement, he said, 'Everything I told you before was a pack of lies: Amanda asked me to lie for her'.

He told police he did not know where Amanda was between 20:45 and 01:00.

He refused to testify at his trial.

At the appeal he stood up to make an impassioned appeal to his fellow Italian jurors, and waxed lyrical about his love affair with Amanda.

Just before one appeal, he was stopped at the Austrian border as he tried to leave the country, despite being ordered not to.

MAJOR ISSUES

The Supreme Court of Cassazione Fifth Chambers (Bruno - Marasca) did NOT find them innocent, but were acquitted due to 'insufficient evidence'.

There is much in the MR to help scupper any compensation claim. It rules

- the pair told 'umpteen lies'.
- the behaviour of the pair 'remains highly suspicious'.
- the burglary was staged, leaving the question open: by whom?
- there was more than one attacker, leaving open the question, who was/were the other/s?
- Amanda Knox' account of the morning of 2nd Nov 2007 was not credible, she would have rung Sollecito if she was concerned.

EVIDENCE

The police kept him in custody in good faith, on the basis:

- knife found in his apartment had the DNA of the victim on the blade and Knox on the handle.
- a strong DNA profile of Sollecito was found on the bra clasp.
- Amanda Knox told police she saw 'blood on his hand'.
- Raffaele tried to explain away the DNA of Meredith by claiming in writing he had pricked her with his knife, cooking.
- there was evidence of dismantled pipes under the sink, a strong smell of bleach and two bottles of bleach under the sink which showed recent usage.
- the pair were at the scene when police arrived.
- Raffaele claimed a break-in, but said nothing was stolen.
- the luminol-highlighted footprints.
- the bloody footprint on the bathmat.


Last edited by jamie on Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Forgive me for being cynical but maybe it will be a political matter whether he gets blood money from the state. This just sounds like BS to me. He wasn't exonerated.

On a happier note, I read comments at the DM under the story about the boyfriend's clothes, and Knox was eviscerated in just about every comment over the last 24 hours with the up/ down votes running about 50-1 against her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

An interview with the directors of Netflix's Amanda Knox, Brian McGinn and Rod Blackhurst, in The Verge:

How the directors of Netflix's Amanda Knox uncovered the humanity behind the headline
Beyond Foxy Knoxy

By Michael Zelenko
September 11, 2016

Quote:
McGinn and Blackhurst told me they weren’t particularly interested in Knox’s guilt or innocence. Instead, Amanda Knox reexamines the case that made perfect tabloid fodder through a more discerning lens to attempt to touch on a larger truth.
[...]
A day after the premiere, I sat down with McGinn and Blackhurst to discuss their film.


http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/11/12878 ... 16-netflix
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

A must-read: Giuliano Mignini's rebuttal to Judy Bachrach's claims in her article in Vanity Fair:

Giuliano Mignini wrote:
The discussion in the article of Bachrach about those allegedly quoted statements about “morality” attributed to me, they are FALSE, I have simply never said them. And one cannot even say that they were a little changed, because I’ve never said anything even remotely like them. Those are statements of a kind that I would NEVER make.
[...]
Thus, all statements within quotation marks as reported in the article by Bachrach are false, I’d say absolutely false: they are the product of a making-up or a spin...
[...]
One stunning aspect of this, is that the narrative they put forward, such as in the article we talk about, seems to be based on a focus on me, as if I were to become a kind of key character functional to their fictional story. I found this particularly strange since in reality the Kercher case investigation was actually based on the work of a number of judiciaries, all of them making decisions with a power that was equal, or greater than mine. So is how the Italian system works on these type of serious crimes.


TJMK
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Corpusville. I know the crime was horrible, that doesn't make them guilty. I know Damien is weird, that doesn't make him guilty. Because the courts said so? Seriously? That is kind of funny considering this case. It is quite a conspiracy that all 7 (or 8?) witnesses that gave Misskelley an ironclad alibi for that night were lying. The neighbor, his father, his gf, and about 4 or 5 guys he went to the wrestling with that night. Is it normal that so many people lie for such a brutal child killer? Again, why was Aaron Hutcheson not on trial? After all, he confessed also.

What is the evidence of those occult meetings, what is the names of those girls who they were all screwing and stuff and taking turns. What does it matter how many times Misskelley confessed? It is just the words of the cops he repeats. He sadly thought it would help him. The bible?...lol. How come he gets so many things wrong, and basically asks the cops what he should say? Why do the cops keep correcting him? Is that normal?
http://www.dpdlaw.com/jessiefirststatement.htm

I could go on and on, but what is the point. I was 100% neutral but now I put some more time in reading the witness statements the pattern becomes clear to me. The case was messed up by a bunch of perverted cops who had something to hide IMO.
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Most comments under the following article are so nasty that one loses, once again, all hope in humanity, I guess it shows the true nature of the inhuman creatures that support AK:

If you think watching Netflix's new Amanda Knox documentary is the right thing to do, you need to examine your morals

Quote:
The near-decade since her killing has played out worse than anyone could have imagined. Amanda Knox’s apparent disregard for the Kercher family has been downright unbelievable. The kindest thing she could have done since her release from prison would have been to slip away, out of sight. But she has exploited her situation for all it’s worth, with insensitive interviews, a lucrative book deal, and now Netflix.


Quote:
In a trailer for the documentary, Knox stares into the camera, dead behind the eyes. “I am you,” she pleads (NB: No, you’re really not). It’s edited in such a way as to make everyone ask: did she or didn't she do it? The deliberate sensationalism is tacky and frankly, I just wish she’d go away.

But with vampiristic prowess, she sucks harder on the fame machine – and has been busy promoting her documentary at the Toronto Film Festival.


Quote:
In the interim, the Kercher family’s pain has been exacerbated and sidelined, and will be elongated further. Unfortunately directors aren’t interested in dignified silence, instead focusing on she who shouts the loudest, whoever she may be.

Since Meredith Kercher died, I have avoided everything that monetises her murder: the 2011 series with Hayden Panettiere; the film The Face of an Angel. I think of the flowers and candles, and a 21-year-old life cut short, and turn away.

I urge you to do the same when this documentary comes out. It’s not Saturday night fun; it’s cruelty for a family still suffering from an unthinkable loss. The right thing is not to watch it.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:15 pm   Post subject: NETFLIX KNOX DOCUMENTARY   

Charlotte Gill writing for the Independent, has written an article about the "Amanda Knox" documentary here: Independent

If you think watching Netflix's new Amanda Knox documentary is the right thing to do, you need to examine your morals
"Amanda Knox’s apparent disregard for the Kercher family has been downright unbelievable. The kindest thing she could have done since her release from prison would have been to slip away, out of sight. But she has exploited her situation for all it’s worth"
Charlotte Gill Sept. 13, 2016
Quote:
Serial. Making a Murderer. Who Killed JonBenet? The Jinx. When will the public appetite end for documentaries about murdered people? Apparently never – which is why Netflix’s latest documentary about Amanda Knox is generating so much enthusiasm. “Can’t wait for this”, “Wanna watch this!” and “Saturday night saving” were just some of the comments I saw on Facebook groups in the wake of news that it would soon be available to binge-watch...

...My viewing habits are hardly holy, and I confess that I was lured into Making a Murderer at start. It was gripping and bizarre, and – being based on events in Wisconsin – felt removed enough from my existence to constitute entertainment. But in the months after its release, I noticed a concerning cultural trend: the public’s need for grizzly amusement had begun to eclipse concern for grieving families. And it’s gone too far...

...The near-decade since her killing has played out worse than anyone could have imagined. Amanda Knox’s apparent disregard for the Kercher family has been downright unbelievable. The kindest thing she could have done since her release from prison would have been to slip away, out of sight. But she has exploited her situation for all it’s worth, with insensitive interviews, a lucrative book deal, and now Netflix.

...In a trailer for the documentary, Knox stares into the camera, dead behind the eyes. “I am you,” she pleads (NB: No, you’re really not). It’s edited in such a way as to make everyone ask: did she or didn't she do it? The deliberate sensationalism is tacky and frankly, I just wish she’d go away...

...Crime documentary makers are not objective, nor jurors; they are sensationalists there to provide entertainment to bloodthirsty viewers. And what they produce – around 10 hours of addictive viewing, followed by endless media discussion surrounding it – is another person's lifetime of misery...

...I urge you to do the same when this documentary comes out. It’s not Saturday night fun; it’s cruelty for a family still suffering from an unthinkable loss. The right thing is not to watch it.

The FOA are out in force there, defending Knox since she's been 'exonerated' and is 'innocent'. No, she was acquitted because of insufficient evidence. And even the court held that if mistakes had not been made earlier on, she might well have been found guilty. But,
Quote:
The near-decade since her killing has played out worse than anyone could have imagined. Amanda Knox’s apparent disregard for the Kercher family has been downright unbelievable. The kindest thing she could have done since her release from prison would have been to slip away, out of sight. But she has exploited her situation for all it’s worth, with insensitive interviews, a lucrative book deal, and now Netflix.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I see you beat me to it, Rumpole :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:16 pm   Post subject: MIGNINI'S RESPONSE TO VANITY FAIR ARTICLE   

This is prosecutor Giuliano Mignini's response to Judy Bachrach's Vanity Fair article which was posted here previously. I see a commenter on Twitter casting doubt on the veracity of his statement. No, it is accurate. Posted here for discussion on PMF.

Quote:
I tell you just some of my thoughts after reading the article of that magazine - which I prefer not to speak about - I only want to say that those statements which are put between quotation marks as attributed to me contained in such article, I just never pronounced them.

I have never said – and to anyone who knows me that would be just enough to understand that, but apparently this journalist, Judy Bachrach, doesn’t know me or pretends not to know me; well actually I’m pretty sure she doesn’t know me at all, and I myself didn’t have the misfortune to know her – I would never say, I’d never talk about, and I’d never mention the morality or the immorality of a person as an argument within the explanation for a crime. Absolutely, no way.

A crime is a violation of a law, an action that may be reprehensible or whatever you like, but it is an action regulated, provided by the penal code, subjected to penalty by the code, that needs to be ascertained, period. And that’s all. It needs to be ascertained following totally objective criteria.

A crime is an objective action, a codified action. It has nothing to do with moral qualities, or allegations of moral qualities, or lack thereof, of an individuals.

The talking in the article of Bachrach about those allegedly quoted statements about “morality”, attributed to me, they are FALSE, I have just never said them. And one cannot even say that they were changed, because I’ve never said anything alike. Those are statements of a kind that I would NEVER make.

Such is the one reported in the article where I allegedly said “Amanda killed because motivated by a wish to be liked at any cost” – by the way statements like those do not make any sense: the person who made up such statements doesn’t realize she saying things void of any meaning.

The Italian Penal Procedure code (art. 220) prohibits that any research into the personality of a suspect could be used in court as evidence, such as the finding of a propensity of a suspect to commit crimes or similar argumentations. A proper research into the personality of a suspect is permitted only when there is a need to establish mental capabilities. On the other hand, some features of a suspect personality might be considered during investigations only to understand the context of a crime.

When I happened to point at some features appearing in the personality of the suspects, I actually cited observations made by criminal psychiatrist Dr. Mastronardi who had given his opinion on the case. Aspects of personalities traits, showing features such as manipulative behaviours or a passive and dependent attitude – to mention some findings involving the suspects – were rather noted, highlighted or detailed not by the prosecution, but by the judges on various instances of the investigation and pre-trial hearings (Investigation Judge C. Matteini, Re-Examination Judge M. Ricciarelli, Preliminary Judge P. Micheli).

It should be pointed out that in a case like the murder of Meredith Kercher – the murder of a young student girl who was uninvolved in dangerous circles and had no enemies, that took place in the house where she lived, and that obviously occurred in the context of an unplanned, chaotic dynamic, which also included some elements of sexual context but of a minor type and not limited to those – independently from the identity of the perpetrators, we are obviously talking about a crime that doesn’t have a “motive” that could have a rational or consistent logical structure, nor the result of a conscious and organized intention. We may only assume that some causes may have contributed to building the situation that lead to the crime. Among the factors, unbalanced personalities, life or emotional disorganization of perpetrators, behavioral excesses, inabilities to handle relations, psychological fragilities, always contribute to this kind of crimes, and we know drugs also played a role. The task of the judiciaries however is not to find out individual and subjective motives. There is, unfortunately, a record of cases where apparent “ordinary” looking young people – including students – became perpetrators of extremely violent murders in contexts where no “motive” could be explained in a way that appeared rational or serious from an objective point of view, that includes group murders, since futile crimes may emerge from the building up of intense situations by individuals not able to handle issues of adult life.

Thus, all statements within quotation marks as reported in the article by Bachrach are false, I’d say absolutely false: they are the product of a making up or spin (I reserve for myself any necessary action in the event there is also defamatory report) or reported without their context or with their context changed (like falsely reporting the dates, such as when I mentioned the time when some Perugian citizens used to compliment with me).

I was stunned by one statement by the end of the article, that says – in which I am reported to have said – that "if they were innocent, they should forget". That is a statement which I said on request of one of the two interviewers, who asked “what would you say to those young persons in the event that they were actually innocent?”. So what could I say, what should I answer to a question framed and spun in such a way? I might say: “it’s an experience that unfortunately happened to you, something that may happen, try to forget, seek all legal ways” – but I was saying that in the abstract, purely in the abstract – “that you think you can follow if you deem that you suffered an injustice” – albeit the Cassazione ruling is in the dubitative formula (Art. 530 § 2. cpp).

But then, Vanityfair journalist does not report my *second* statement, that is the other one I said, just following: “And what about if they are guilty? If they were guilty I’d suggest them to remind that our human life ends as trial that has an irreversible sentence, that will last forever”. My answer was made of two statements, not by one. Both were rhetorical and hypothetical. The last statement was the one I thought would have unlashed criticism, curiously it’s the one missing in the article, there is no comment about it.

Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and complimented me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented about the Narducci case. It was somehow satisfying because it was after many years of difficulties and attacks. Perugian people expressed their support to me because of the Narducci case, and secondarily also appeared to express their support because of my independency facing the international media campaign that was mounted up against me after the Kercher case.

I don’t know if it was Vanityfair the one who made up or spun my answers, falsely reporting them from the Netflix documentary, or if it was Netflix itself who made them up by editing the interview and disseminating content from a video prior to the premiere. I had a positive experience working with the documentary directors at the time. Not knowing what the journalist watched or made up, I will anyway reserve to take my decisions as consequence. I have to say, I am quite disconcerted about the way a certain American environment appears to think and how keeps going on in ravings about this case.

One stunning aspect of this, is that the narrative they put forward, such as in the article we talk about, seems to be based on focus on me, as if I were to become a kind of key character functional to their fictional story. I found this particularly strange since in reality the Kercher case investigation was actually based on the work of a number of judiciaries, all of them making decisions with a power that was equal, or greater than mine. So is how the Italian system works on these type of serious crimes. The fact that even a second Public Minister was appointed almost from the beginning may suggest that we didn’t have personal investment: I asked Manuela Comodi – who has my equal rank, is not my deputy – to share the investigation and deal with the technical parts, such as the expert witnesses, since she is very good in this area. The other, multiple judiciaries involved beside us, all had greater powers, each of them could have stopped the investigation or changed its orientation and settings. Therefore, a personalization of the case – as if I had some kind of special power – or the polarization of it – like in a narrative that has me and one of the suspects as main characters – it appears unrealistic to any person with a minimum of understanding of the system. Indeed if there are reporters who like to make up a story where a person with my name plays the role of a picturesque fictional character, motivated by “moral” or religious obsessions or else, all of this only shows an agenda about those journalists that tells much more about them and about the type of campaign they are part of, than about the case.

There is anyway one important element which, unfortunately, I know was left out from the documentary – partly because it was produced earlier than the publication of the Cassazione ruling – I know that something the documentary omits to mention, is the actual content of the latest ruling by the 5th Panel of Cassazione. If we leave aside, for a moment, the several issues of consistency and law inherent to the ruling itself (those that may be spotted by those who read it with some knowledge of the topics), there is anyway the fact that the ruling confirms certain findings.

Some facts recognized as certain by the Cassazione, not reported in the documentary, are that it is anyway a “proven fact” that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of crime when crime was committed. The same ruling also points out how it is proven beyond doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by more than one person, and Rudy Guede certainly acted together with others. The fact that Amanda Knox was certainly there is emphasized by the Court to the point of noting their agreement with the lower Court on the fact that Ms. Knox heard Meredith’s harrowing scream, and even noted that she had the victim’s blood on her hands, that she washed them in order to clean them from Meredith’s blood.

The High Court only raises a reasonable doubt about the active participation of Amanda Knox to the action of killing. The Court – in agreement with other definitive findings – also reminds that Ms. Knox voluntarily lied as she falsely accused an innocent, and notes that no way this finding could be ever overturned. All these things are missing in the documentary. I’d like all American friends to remind these last bits of information as well, whenever they decide to seek information about the Kercher case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:43 pm   Post subject: FALSE CHARGES ABOUT MIGNINI RESPONSE   

Sometimes, you can only shake your head at the silliness some people get up to. But you are also compelled to respond. Twitter user Charlotte Hobbs posted the tweet below:

It should be pointed out that Charlotte Hobbs is the sister of Friends of Amanda group member Lyn Duncan, who posted pictures of the naked Meredith Kercher on Twitter before complaints forced it to be taken down as well as harassing the Kercher family directly with pictures of the Vaseline jar from the crime scene. Charlotte Hobbs has also engaged in harassment online under various aliases, as has her sister.

So sorry, Charlotte. Mignini's response IS genuine, and his alone.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Everybody is entitled to their opinion so here is mine. Where is the evidence? The article doesn't list any evidence whatsoever.


The claim above is demonstrably untrue. I cited several pieces of evidence mentioned by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. For example, the SC of Arkanas stated that Damian Echols knew specific details about the crime:

“Detective Bryn Ridge testified that Echols said he understood the victims had been mutilated, with one being cut up more than the others, and that they had drowned. Ridge testified that when Echols made the statement, the fact that Christopher Byers had been mutilated more than the other two victims was not known by the public. The jury could have reasonably concluded that Echols would not have known this fact unless he were involved in some manner.

“Echols took the witness stand, and his testimony contained additional evidence of guilt. When asked about his statement that one victim was mutilated more than the others, he said he learned the fact from newspaper accounts. His attorney showed him the newspaper articles about the murders. On cross-examination, Echols admitted that the articles did not mention one victim being mutilated more than the others, and he admitted that he did not read such a fact in a newspaper.”

(Damien Wayne ECHOLS and Charles Jason Baldwin v. STATE of Arkansas, Supreme Court of Arkansas)

I pointed out that the Supreme Court of Arkanas said two witnesses claimed that Damian Echols admitted he had killied the three boys:

Twelve-year-old Christy VanVickle testified that she heard Echols say he “killed the three boys.” Fifteen-year-old Jackie Medford testified that she heard Echols say, “I killed the three little boys and before I turn myself in, I’m going to kill two more, and I already have one of them picked out.”

The testimony of these two independent witnesses was direct evidence of the statement by Echols. These witnesses were cross-examined by Echols counsel, and it was the jury’s province to weigh their credibility.

(Damien Wayne ECHOLS and Charles Jason Baldwin v. STATE of Arkansas,Supreme Court of Arkansas).

I also noted that the Supreme Court of Arkansas stated that Jessie Misskelley told the police that he, Echols and Jason Baldwin had attacked and killed the boys.

“On June 3, or almost one month after the murders, Detective Mike Allen asked Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., about the murders. Misskelley was not a suspect at the time, but Echols was, and it was thought that Misskelley might give some valuable information about Echols. Detective Allen had been told all three engaged in cult-like activities. Misskelley made two statements to the detective that implicated Echols and Baldwin, as well as himself. The statements can be found in Misskelley v. State, 323 Ark. 449, 459-61, 915 S.W.2d 702, 707-08 (1996).”

(Damien Wayne ECHOLS and Charles Jason Baldwin v. STATE of Arkansas, Supreme Court of Arkansas).

I provided testimony from one of Jessie Misskelley's friends - Buddy Lucas - who claimed that Misskelley confessed to him.

I pointed out that prosecutor John Fogleman highlighted the fact that Jessie Misskelley knew facts that nobody else knew in his closing argument and provided verbatim quotes from the court transcripts.

These are some of the pieces of evidence that led to the convictions of the WM3. I didn't list all the pieces of evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:16 am   Post subject: ALEXA RANKING   

Alexa (maybe not accurate but still) has the Meredith Kercher Wiki ranked at 911,691 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/themurder ... ercher.com while the copy cat site (with a documentary coming out about Amanda Knox) is at 3,524,943 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/amandaknoxcase.com (not enough data to even estimate).

We had a huge increase recently as people turn to us for information about the case. I'm sure press releases help hugz-)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Its sad to see you lower your standards on another case The Machine. You call any of that evidence? Why believe a word of what the police say with the knowledge of how they dealt with Misskelly, and Vicky and Aaron Hutcheson, and other witnesses? It shows a pattern and that pattern is applicable to Echols as well.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien2.html

Somebody with mental issues is bragging he is the boogyman to a couple of girls and this is now hard evidence? You can't have it both ways. If it even happened, since the girls statements are all over the place. Buddy Lucas is a suspect himself and he recanted his story. Misskelly just repeats what the cops say and still his statements are full with inaccuracies. The same happened with Aaron Hutcheson.

If you want to be objective then you could point out that there is also another side of the case. Witnesses that made supportive statements. Here is a simple timeline for the night of the murder. Were all those people lying?
7:15 PM - 7:30 PM - Jessie leaves for Dyess with Freddy Revelle, Bill Cox, Roger Jones, Dennis Carter Jr., and Johnny Hamilton.
8:00 PM - Jessie and company meet Keith Johnson at Exxon station near Turell to go to Dyess.
8:00 PM - 12:00 AM - Jessie wrestling at Dyess with: Bill Cox, Dennis Carter, Roger Jones, Johnny Hamilton, and Keith Johnson.

There simply is too much to go into detail. What is disappointing to me is that the same standards applied to the Kercher case aren't applied to other cases in the same way. Suddenly it is 'because the courts say so'. Sorry, but that just doesn't convince me of anything. They released them after all.
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Corpusville. I know the crime was horrible, that doesn't make them guilty.

I'm not syaing it does. The court's verdict does.

Quote:
I know Damien is weird, that doesn't make him guilty.

See above and he wasn't on trial for being weird but for three counts of child murder.
Quote:
Because the courts said so?

Yep. If they got it wrong then specify how via a list of legal procedural or systematic errors.

Quote:
Seriously?

Yeah seriously as serious as three murdered children.

Quote:
That is kind of funny considering this case. It is quite a conspiracy that all 7 (or 8?) witnesses that gave Misskelley an ironclad alibi for that night were lying. The neighbor, his father, his gf, and about 4 or 5 guys he went to the wrestling with that night. Is it normal that so many people lie for such a brutal child killer? Again, why was Aaron Hutcheson not on trial? After all, he confessed also.

Was his confession supported by forensic evidence and did he confess multiple times like Miskelley did?

Quote:
What is the evidence of those occult meetings, what is the names of those girls who they were all screwing and stuff and taking turns.

That's not what they were on trial for.

Quote:
What does it matter how many times Misskelley confessed?

I think it matters, especially when they're totally unsolicited.


Quote:
It is just the words of the cops he repeats.

I know I know and it was really cuz they were harmless goth kids who liked Stephen King Knox was coerced and Guede was the sole killer and contamination happened and I'm really a Nigerian prince who can make u mega rich if you just gimme your bank details.


Quote:
He sadly thought it would help him

He thought confessing to multiple child murder would help him? Lol, Jaysus they weren't lying when they said he'd a low IQ,. were they? Cuz that really is as thick as shi... Not particularly bright even by thicko standards.


Quote:
The bible?...lol. How come he gets so many things wrong, and basically asks the cops what he should say? Why do the cops keep correcting him? Is that normal?

An admission against interest is evidence against you and inconsistency is allowed in statements by law, be it from the perp or victim, so it's irrelevant.

Quote:
I could go on and on, but what is the point.

None at all whatsoever because as I said- they're not fooling me and you basically think they're innocent cuz it feels right and feelings don't mean anything.

Quote:
I was 100% neutral but now I put some more time in reading the witness statements the pattern becomes clear to me. The case was messed up by a bunch of perverted cops who had something to hide IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJKnJkgxxUo

How precisely were the cops "perverted" and what precisely did they have to hide? How many took part in this conspiracy and for what purpose?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Its sad to see you lower your standards on another case The Machine. You call any of that evidence?

Okay you need to stop conflating your personal criteria for evidence with the standard criteria. "The Machine" is not personally "calling" this evidence, it's considered evidence by the court even if said evidence doesn't meet your personal standards.
All that matters is whether or not the evidence is considered sufficient to convict bard and in this case the evidence was deemed sufficient to convince two courts.


Quote:
Why believe a word of what the police say with the knowledge of how they dealt with Misskelly, and Vicky and Aaron Hutcheson, and other witnesses? It shows a pattern and that pattern is applicable to Echols as well.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien2.html

Damn straight considering Echols lied his ass off in court. Why disbelieve the cops and take the word of three child murderers at face value?

Quote:
Somebody with mental issues is bragging he is the boogyman to a couple of girls and this is now hard evidence?

He claimed in court they were making it up and claimed to 48 Hours that he did say it but was only kjoking so he either committed perjury or lied to 48 hours, either way, he's a liar. If his other lies about reading stuff in newspapers wasn't enough.

Quote:
You can't have it both ways.

Nobody is trying to have anything any way.

Quote:
If it even happened, since the girls statements are all over the place.

Yeah to go with the coercion and perverted cops with something to hide and all the other anomalies that just came together, like the stars aligning to screw things up so symmetrically for the three innocents. You're taking a piecemeal approach to the evidence and the case, sorry, viewing everything in isolation from each connecting piece.

Quote:
Buddy Lucas is a suspect himself and he recanted his story.

Was he charged?
Quote:
Misskelly just repeats what the cops say and still his statements are full with inaccuracies. The same happened with Aaron Hutcheson.

Again the law allows for inconsistency in a statement- see Brendan Dassey's confession for details. Was Hutcheson charged and tried to go with Lucas?

Quote:
If you want to be objective then you could point out that there is also another side of the case. Witnesses that made supportive statements.

Did both juries accept the supportive statements? Did said statements trump the evidence against them?
Quote:
Here is a simple timeline for the night of the murder.

Timeline isn't required by any court. Echols and co aren't special little guys deserving of special treatment, but get the same treatment as anyone else up for sexually aggravated multiple child murder.

Quote:
There simply is too much to go into detail. What is disappointing to me is that the same standards applied to the Kercher case aren't applied to other cases in the same way.

How so? Specifically?

Quote:
Suddenly it is 'because the courts say so'.

yeah hence our condemnation of Hellman and Cassation's reports, with specific reasons given as to why we were condemning it.


Quote:
Sorry, but that just doesn't convince me of anything.

Okay, specify how both courts got it wrong so, thanks.

Quote:
They released them after all.

So? They released Kelly Michaels and Fran & Dan Keller also but the court didn't exonerate and those actually had their convictions overturned and were released on bond.
WM3 didn't have their convictions overturned. You claim there's no evidence while disregarding that they themselves acknowledge that evidence exists against them via their Alford plea. A copped Alford plea doesn't equate to factual innocence and equates to judicial guilt actually.

If two courts don't convince you and footage that I linked of Echols merrily lying his ass off on the witness stand, then sorry but nothing will.

Who do you think did it btw? Byers? Oh wait he's on board now so maybe Hobbs? Or the fabled black guy Mr Bojangles? I take it innuendo and speculation is sufficient to convict them in the court of public opinion, while two courts can be rejected- without specifying how they erred, mind- for the three goth kids who simply liked Stephen King, poor guys?

They aren't fooling me with their innocnece fraud. We'll have to agree to disagree Max but believe me, rehashing what was covered in court and conflating your own personal criteria for evidence or burden of proof bar with the standard ones, won't help your argument.
Cheers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Knox cashing in now


Well, Sollecito also cashes in wherever and whenever he can - just show him the money. I don't know if he is getting paid for his participation in all those seminars, workshops, and conferences, but he spends a great deal of time attending them. Here is the latest announcement:

September 7, 2016

Investigations for the defense, when a detective serves. As in Perugia

In October the Milanese workshop, organized by StopSecret Magazine, with Raffaele Sollecito. The role of private investigator in a criminal trial, towards a new legal culture.

By Cosimo Cordaro

Notice to readers: If these lines should appear to you as a promotion, you are not mistaken, it is. But we would like you to continue reading, especially, if, to make ends meet, you deal with private investigations, in whole or in part.

What we want to promote, to convince you to participate in, is in fact the seminar organized by StopSecret Magazine "Defensive investigations in a criminal trial - Case history: the case of the murder of Perugia and Raffaele Sollecito" which will be held on October 18 in Milan.

Why participate?

Those who work in the industry know this: the longed-for equality of arms between the prosecution and defense in a trial is far from being realized, and among the largest imbalances that plague the relationship between the parties is the right to have the power, by public prosecutors, over the Judicial Police [Polizia Giudiziaria].

During the seminar we will examine the rules that allow a defense lawyer to be able to carry out investigations, as well as limitations and opportunities that these represent.
We'll find out about the support that can be given to the investigation by a private investigator, a forensic biologist, new investigative technologies, dactyloscopy and computer forensic activities.

And then, while it’s not the main reason, there is Raffaele Sollecito. Whose court case, thanks to excessive media coverage it received, has assumed paradigmatic value by at least two points of view.

First: this is a perfect example of the contradictions in the case of Italian criminal justice investigations that are entrusted, at times, to the judgment and subjective preferences of investigative bodies, often carried out on the basis of a [single] thesis, more conscious of sparing investigators a "shameful" step back than of protecting citizen rights, identifying the real culprit and not “a” culprit, analyzing with dedication all possible hypotheses.

Second: The case of Perugia shows that even apparently being crushed by this tragically Kafkaesque mechanism, there's a chance to get out of it. And this chance is spelled out in Article 327-bis of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which a defense lawyer "has the power to carry out investigations to search for and find evidence in favor of his client for the exercise of the right to defense, at every stage and level of proceedings and judicial execution, to promote the review of the judgment.” Activities that can be carried out by a substitute [lawyer], authorized private investigators and, when specific skills are needed, by technical advisors.

That's why we've asked the defendant - Raffaele - to recount his experiences firsthand, as an addition to an eminently educational and operational meeting. Not everyone knows this, but the judgment, which acquitted him, along with Amanda Knox, of killing her roommate, Meredith Kercher, was achieved even - or especially - thanks to the efforts of investigators and consultants engaged / appointed by defense lawyers, who have managed to "dismantle", or at least to show the weakness or inconsistency of the evidence supporting the prosecution's [accusatory] castle.

We'll talk about all this because it is our job? Of course, but also because, in the background, there is a serious question of legal culture. Indeed, since it directly affects the most fundamental individual rights, Raffaele Sollecito will testify to it with his story.


http://www.stopsecret.it/Investigazioni ... -a-Perugia

Image
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

If everyone in the entire world said right, those two are innocent they didn't do it, we will never ever say a word about it again, it wouldn't help Knox to get over anything at all, the reason for that is actual guilt, she needs people to be engaged about it, if you are not, she always will be and so will Psycho Sollecito, they cannot let it go as it is inside them forever, the moment Meredith was in the throes of death haunt them they need you to wrestle with it as they wrestle with it themselves, forever more. Knox for instance, is busy digging her own grave, imagine that, digging your own grave, wonderful, how exciting and relieving for her, her partner Psycho Smiley Chops from the Bar as in I, is an auto-grave digging bastard as well.
Their CVs are good for a job with ISIS management.

Fcuk me sideways the horrendously thick-headed bastards are beyond contempt.
How can they ever succeed in the great earthly born purpose of becoming perfect in love, I don't hate them, I feel very sorry for them that they'll need 100,000 lives of hell to get healed and then some.

Point is in this life there is no escape from your own thoughts and actions, not even through suicide, we are on a path, most have no idea about where to, and this is the curse of the material world, each to his/her own and each must do the work, you cannot hide from the truth of your own reality, if you murder someone there's no way you can block it out, even dementia will be temporary, basically the actions from these two say: help, help, how can we undo what we did.
As the old jocks and pervos die, become forgetful or find some other sick thing to fill their ugly-minded days, they stand alone, no praise or bullshit can help them, guess who can help them?

They, only they, can help themselves, by telling the truth.
Isn't it always like that in real life.

It's not my problem, not your problem, certainly not Meredith's family's problem, it's all their problem, a mental problem.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I don't have to do anything Corpusville. That is the fun thing of the internets. Of course it is just my opinion but I am used from these forums that evidence is supported. That is how PMF became what it is today. Not just yelling and screaming because the courts say so, or because a cop said so, or because you say so. That is just silly. There was no evidence of any rape (and certainly not the way Misskelley described it), the lies you speak of are evidence of teenagers acting stupid, there wasn't any forensic evidence supporting anyone, if a witness recants and admits he/she told a pack of lies then you have a problem. Unlike Misskelley, Aaron got at least the murder location right and the part about the shoelaces. If they had put a professional interrogator on him then he might have even been useful. Sorry, but your post is a bit hard to read and too emotional to reply to it all.

It is not strange at all that they accepted the Alford plea. It got them out of jail. Of course they signed. The release of these 'child killers' is the strange part and shows that they didn't have a case. Since all we have is 'confessions' and 'lies', why not let our old friend Peter Hyatt do a few articles on TJMK for a bit of balance? Or is he only invited when he follows the party line?

He was very supportive on the Kercher case. Guilty.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/member/5578/
Not so supportive on the WM3 case I am afraid. Not guilty.
http://www.statementanalysis.com/WM3/je ... onfession/
Supportive on Steve Avery. A bit less on Dassey but ok. Guilty.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/ ... ncing.html
And just for fun. The McCanns. Sorry, not supportive. Guilty.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/ ... -2011.html

Two out of four for TJMK. Could have been worse I guess :)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Maybe any discussion of TJMK should be carried there, not here, max.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:03 pm   Post subject: ALEXA METRICS   

More traffic and demographic metrics from Alexa for the Meredith Kercher Wiki http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/themurder ... ercher.com showing renewed interest in the case.

Global rank: 913,997 Increase in ranking: 2,127,699

Country Percent of Visitors Rank in Country

Italy 72.8% 24,034

United States 19.1% 486,437

Please link to http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page on social media when engaging with people abt the case.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

@Max
True dat. However another fun thing about the internet is that if you're unwilling or unable to provide valid examples to validate your opinion which could in turn lead me to re-examine my position, then I can promptly and comfortably dismiss them on the grounds that they're just well, baseless claims made on the internet.
No I've invited you to explain how both courts effed up and you reply you don't have to, hence my instant dismissal of your claims as the truth is simple to defend and indeed invigorating. Your unwillingness to defend your truth tells me I don't need to give your opinion any weight.

Oh God no, seriously. Lying in court about how you knew details of a psycho triple murder that you have no business knowing really isn't a kid acting stupid, that's actually considered damning evidence against you, really can't emphasise that one enough.
When you then on top of your lies on details, tell a different story to 48 hours re your bragging about murdering the three children you're on trial for and planning to murder two more, then I gotta say, the old eyebrows start getting raised even more.
Unless you run with your feelings of course, then anything is possible cuz feelings are like important and stuff. It's why Amanda Knox, the WM3, Adnan Syed, Steven Avery and poor old mentally challenged Brendan Dassey were all railroaded by corrupt cops and Satanism obsessed and equally corrupt prosecutors some who didn't even speak English so were erm, extra corrupt.
Unfortunately though feelings, warm and fuzzy that they are just don't trump submitted evidence which convinces separate juries bard. It would be awesome if they did but reality is such a bitch.

It would be awesome too if forensic evidence was required to make a conviction but it isn't. This sounds crazy but long before DNA testing and profiling and gathering and all that other gnarly CSI stuff was invented, people still got convicted of crimes such as rape and murder.
Just because detection technology improves, that doesn't mean that the burden of proof bar gets raised to go with the improvement. It just means you've a better chance of getting caught and again our three fun loving misunderstood Goth kids aren't special, so forensic evidence isn't needed, just for them and just cuz they're Damien, Jason and Jess.

No it doesn't. Maybe it isn't strange that they'd want to gtfo of prison but they're still pleading guilty and acknowledging that the state has evidence against them even if you feel the special little guys had their special little reasons.

Hey if they were tried on the internet with TJMK as the prosecution online then you could go on to all those taking part in the online vote for guilt or innocence how biased and mean they were.
They were tried in court though as in the courts I asked you to specify how they erred.

So I'll also dismiss your opinion in this regard as irrelevant to the guilt of the WM3.
Innocence fraud should temper your bs detector, Max. I'm sorry the phenomenon hasn't tempered yours.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline whatswisdom


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:52 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

zorba wrote:
They, only they, can help themselves, by telling the truth. ...
Isn't it always like that in real life.
So true, Zorba. You can see through the ridiculous display in Toronto. Anyone relieved to have gotting away with murder would gladly STFU and gradually fade into oblivion. Instead, Knox is unable to resist playing with fire. Only the truth can set you free. The proper documentary (you know, the Errol Morris, Werner Herzog kind) is inevitable. That substantive doc/book/movie, when released, is gonna finally help blow the lid on this. Too bad we couldn't get through to the U.S. masses via the internet. I tried these last couple of years but everyone is too unwilling to take a few minutes to engage with this by reading the facts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sorry Corpusville I have no idea what your on about now. Your posts are very hard to read. Why is it so difficult to outline the forensic evidence that ties the three to the crime scene. How one piece of evidence leads to another and makes a compelling case. All we are doing is arguing about the gossips of some teenage girls which only proves my point. I have hardly said a word about Echols. You keep insisting he had knowledge of the crime, but it is his word against the word of a cop. The same cop who took part in coaching Misskelley into a false confession. There isn't even a recording or a transcript. How is that hard evidence?

I have provided links from people who know much better than me and who have analyzed these statements word for word. Maybe it was before your time but people like Peter Hyatt and Eyes for Lies have been part of the discussions on the PMF forums because they are experts in analyzing witness statements. Why should I not take them seriously just because it is about another case? Misskelley was convicted based on his confession. If the confession was false then the courts had it wrong. It is as simple as that. Baldwin was convicted based on the ramblings of a prison snitch. We all know the value of prison snitches from the Kercher case. Why can't we apply the same standards to the Baldwin conviction? This wasn't even mentioned in the article. I have no intention to convince anyone of anything. The link to the article was posted and I replied with my opinion. I have explained that the TJMK article was misleading and the title doesn't cover the contents. It was never meant to be personal. It just would be nice to see a bit more balance. That is all.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Maybe any discussion of TJMK should be carried there, not here, max.

Sure but you are allowing the links to be posted then why is it not allowed to respond?
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Maybe any discussion of TJMK should be carried there, not here, max.

Sure but you are allowing the links to be posted then why is it not allowed to respond?


A link to TJMK is one thing, max. Responding to anything corpusvile and The Machine write here is one thing; but a generalized criticism of TJMK not allowing dissenting or opposing views, is something that should be addressed to TJMK there.
Quote:
Since all we have is 'confessions' and 'lies', why not let our old friend Peter Hyatt do a few articles on TJMK for a bit of balance? Or is he only invited when he follows the party line?

He was very supportive on the Kercher case. Guilty.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/member/5578/
Not so supportive on the WM3 case I am afraid. Not guilty.
http://www.statementanalysis.com/WM3/je ... onfession/
Supportive on Steve Avery. A bit less on Dassey but ok. Guilty.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/ ... ncing.html
And just for fun. The McCanns. Sorry, not supportive. Guilty.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/ ... -2011.html

Two out of four for TJMK. Could have been worse I guess :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sorry Ergon but I can't accept that. This forum is full with comments about other sites. I was merely having a bit of fun while at the same time pointing out something unbalanced. I am afraid I no longer feel comfortable about this case when I see what is going on not only TJMK but especially Twitter and about every comment section of any article about this case. I know that is not your fault, and I should just ignore it but that is just my problem I guess. I have been here (on dot net) longer than anyone else (except Michael of course), which was just a coincidence but still a fun fact..lol..so I guess it is time to move on. Please disable my account or else I will just shut up which is fine also. All the best.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That is up to you, max. Should I also allow negative comments about PMF ORG? I don't know about other sites, but one of my rules is, not to create division amongst the MK community by criticizing the 4 sites or their owners/admins.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
You keep insisting he had knowledge of the crime, but it is his word against the word of a cop. The same cop who took part in coaching Misskelley into a false confession. There isn't even a recording or a transcript. How is that hard evidence?


Supporters of Amanda Knox and Adnan Syed use this argument i.e. the cops coached someone to say something incriminating. Of they never substantiate their claims. Claims of police coaching is a convenient get out of jail free card when they're unable to provide a plausible innocent explanation for damning testimony. A number of Jessie Misskelley's claims were corroborated by the autopsy reports. This is an indisputable fact. Perhaps they were lucky guesses. If you have any evidence that corrupt cops coached him into making this claims, please share this evidence on here.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
I have explained that the TJMK article was misleading and the title doesn't cover the contents. It was never meant to be personal. It just would be nice to see a bit more balance. That is all.


Pete wrote the title. I wrote the post and I stand by every word. I think it's important to point out that Damian Echols wasn't convicted because he work black, listened to Metaliica and read Stephen King books and Jessie Misskelley repeatedly claimed that he, Echols and Baldwin killed the three boys over a significant period of time and he knew specific details about the crime. This information should have been included in the WM3 documentaries.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
max wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Maybe any discussion of TJMK should be carried there, not here, max.

Sure but you are allowing the links to be posted then why is it not allowed to respond?


A link to TJMK is one thing, max. Responding to anything corpusvile and The Machine write here is one thing; but a generalized criticism of TJMK not allowing dissenting or opposing views, is something that should be addressed to TJMK there.
Quote:
Since all we have is 'confessions' and 'lies', why not let our old friend Peter Hyatt do a few articles on TJMK for a bit of balance? Or is he only invited when he follows the party line?

He was very supportive on the Kercher case. Guilty.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/member/5578/
Not so supportive on the WM3 case I am afraid. Not guilty.
http://www.statementanalysis.com/WM3/je ... onfession/
Supportive on Steve Avery. A bit less on Dassey but ok. Guilty.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/ ... ncing.html
And just for fun. The McCanns. Sorry, not supportive. Guilty.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/ ... -2011.html

Two out of four for TJMK. Could have been worse I guess :)


Yeah but if you express criticism over there, the post will never get seen, since, as is my experience, you are instantly shut out of the site, so there's democracy for ya!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Sorry Corpusville I have no idea what your on about now. Your posts are very hard to read. Why is it so difficult to outline the forensic evidence that ties the three to the crime scene.

No problem Max, I'll dumb it down for you- everything you've said re the WM3 is irrelevant and not a valid objection. Forensic evidence isn't required to make a conviction- that's it. Loads in prison right now convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and again, our three child sex murderers aren't special & don't get the burden of proof bar raised for them.

Quote:
How one piece of evidence leads to another and makes a compelling case. All we are doing is arguing about the gossips of some teenage girls which only proves my point.

No stop, you're doing it again, conflating your personal criteria for evidence with the standard criteria? You need to stop doing that. It's not "gossip of some teenage girls", it's "Evidence testimony in court"., so again your objection is ninavlid and irrelvant.


Quote:
I have hardly said a word about Echols. You keep insisting he had knowledge of the crime

I also proved it by linking his testimony where he lies his ass off as to how he knew those details. I'm not expecting you to take it on board as I realise how important feelings are to you.

.
Quote:
but it is his word against the word of a cop. The same cop who took part in coaching Misskelley into a false confession.

You need to also stop passing off your subjective opinion as established fact. Please cite where Miskelley's confession was established as false by the court, cheers.

Quote:
There isn't even a recording or a transcript. How is that hard evidence?

Yeah that's because recordings weren't required under Arkansas law and remember what I said about how the burden of proof bar doesn't get raised for the WM3? Ditto the police procedural bar and also the due process bar, just is case there's a prosecution argument or witness testimony you disagree with as well. Transcripts do exists of some of Miskelley's confession anyway.

Recordings also weren't required under Italian law or Wisconsin law and can you guess why I'm mentioning this as well? It's because that's the exact same argument both Amanda Knox's Kool Aid Brigade and supporters of Poor retarded Brendan Dassey moot, as part of his questioning wasn't recorded either meaning he should be freed now immediately and taken to Wrestlemania.
This is what I meant at the start of this post when I pointed out how every objection you've made is irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote:
I have provided links from people who know much better than me and who have analyzed these statements word for word.

Did they testify and more pertinently, did the two juries buy it?

Quote:
Maybe it was before your time but people like Peter Hyatt and Eyes for Lies have been part of the discussions on the PMF forums because they are experts in analyzing witness statements. Why should I not take them seriously just because it is about another case? Misskelley was convicted based on his confession. If the confession was false then the courts had it wrong. It is as simple as that. Baldwin was convicted based on the ramblings of a prison snitch. We all know the value of prison snitches from the Kercher case. Why can't we apply the same standards to the Baldwin conviction? This wasn't even mentioned in the article. I have no intention to convince anyone of anything. The link to the article was posted and I replied with my opinion. I have explained that the TJMK article was misleading and the title doesn't cover the contents. It was never meant to be personal. It just would be nice to see a bit more balance. That is all.
[/quote]

Miskelley's confession was supported by evidence so it's all good. Baldwin was not convicted solely on the "ramblings of a prison snitch".
Prison snitches in Ms Kercher's case were in an annulled court, so again it's all good.

Balance to you though is entertaining your irrelevant objections which nobody is gonna do, due to your raising of the bar and conflation of your evidence criteria for the standard criteria. Nobody is gonna do that, as it's irrational, sorry.


Last edited by corpusvile on Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Sorry Ergon but I can't accept that. This forum is full with comments about other sites. I was merely having a bit of fun while at the same time pointing out something unbalanced. I am afraid I no longer feel comfortable about this case when I see what is going on not only TJMK but especially Twitter and about every comment section of any article about this case. I know that is not your fault, and I should just ignore it but that is just my problem I guess. I have been here (on dot net) longer than anyone else (except Michael of course), which was just a coincidence but still a fun fact..lol..so I guess it is time to move on. Please disable my account or else I will just shut up which is fine also. All the best.


Max, nobody is asking you to do either, particularly disable your account. I mean no disrespect to you with my tone but have no respect for your argument is all, as I heard it all before from Knox's fanclub. It didn't wash with me then so I won't entertain it now. That doesn't mean I disrespect you personally but I do not suffer such weak arguments as it's tiresome. It's tiresome having to point out how forensic evidence or timelines or recorded interrogations are not required to make a conviction and equally tiring to be subjected to rehashing of what was already covered in court, or repetition of already lost defence arguments, or personal disagreements being passed off as empirical examples of how courts got it wrong and all the other specious, hollow arguments that people who run with their feelings engage in.
That's what you're actually doing, running with your feelings, as opposed to analysing and interpreting the data objectively and I simply don't have the patience to entertain such fallacies, sorry.

But don't delete your account and please feel free to give your opinion, but if I disagree with it, I will point out why.
Cheers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hey guys, please calm down. Max, from one old-timer to another ;) - please don't leave! Personally, I value your opinion on the Meredith Kercher case and will miss your voice. I don't know much about other crimes you've been discussing with corpusvile (WM3, Madeleine McCann...) Perhaps you could take your discussions to pm? Take a little break to revive and recharge and come back! We all get tired once in a while from following this long legal saga and feel disconcerted and upset.

Appeal KNOX vs. ITALY


The deadline for the Italian government's response to Knox's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is approaching fast (September 17). Perhaps we should focus on that instead of internal disagreements concerning other criminal cases? Does anybody know who is in charge of composing a response to ECHR? Has it been deposited already?

To remind everyone:

Quote:
The European Court of Human Rights has accepted for preliminary review an appeal against Italy presented by Amanda Knox, acquitted in Cassation from the charge of having participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. [...] The Strasbourg Court considered valid the dossier submitted on November 24, 2013 by the lawyers of Knox, Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova, and announced the appeal to the Italian government so that it can defend itself. [...] Now the Italian government will have to provide the Court with the evidence to clear itself from accusations of Knox.


Quote:
Now the Italian Government will have until 17 September to provide its assessments to the Court which will then make its decision.


Read more about it HERE and HERE
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I have no further desire to discuss the WM3 so no probs, guermantes. ;)
I thought prosecutor Crini had responded re the ECHR? And are we absolutely sure this is being reported accurately? They're definitely hearing it and not asking Della Vedova if his client exhausted all options with Italy? Or has it moved beyond that to an actual hearing? If so then the Italians have two days to make a response, assuming Crini didn't respond and I read wrongly. If they haven't responded by now, they probably won't, legitimizing Knox's innocence fraud all the more. I've lost all respect for their judiciary anyway after Cassation's fiasco so nothing will surprise me at this stage.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

No news on ECtHR yet, guermantes. We'll get a hold of Italian response soon as it becomes available.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
I have no further desire to discuss the WM3 so no probs, guermantes. ;)
I thought prosecutor Crini had responded re the ECHR? And are we absolutely sure this is being reported accurately? They're definitely hearing it and not asking Della Vedova if his client exhausted all options with Italy? Or has it moved beyond that to an actual hearing? If so then the Italians have two days to make a response, assuming Crini didn't respond and I read wrongly. If they haven't responded by now, they probably won't, legitimizing Knox's innocence fraud all the more. I've lost all respect for their judiciary anyway after Cassation's fiasco so nothing will surprise me at this stage.


Hi corpusvile, Crini has commented on Sollecito's request for compensation, I believe. I can't recall him commenting on Knox's appeal to ECHR. Knox is appealing her conviction (of 3 years) for falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba of murder, so it's more Mignini's "territory". I'm sure if he were entrusted with writing a response to ECHR, he would submit it on time.

Since in the article quoted above it says: "Now the Italian government will have to provide the Court with the evidence to clear itself from accusations of Knox", I'm not sure what "the Italian government" means in this context. Who in the Italian government? It should matter to the "Italian government" whether they would be required to pay compensation to Knox for 1 year of "unjust" imprisonment or for all 4 she spent in prison, if ECHR upholds her appeal re: her "mistreatment" by police during her Nov 5-6 questioning. No, it hasn't moved to a hearing yet. It's still in its early stages pending responses from Knox's lawyers and the "Italian government."

But I share your concern about disorganized Italian justice system and wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they "forgot" to respond or missed the deadline. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Lol, sorry guermantes, I'm getting my cases mixed up, my bad and thanks for the correction. is)
Re the ECHR appeal, at this stage, I'm simply cynical. I strongly suspect that Sollecito & Gumbel's trial will be stretched out until prescrizione/statutes of limitations expire, for example as I think the Italians simply wish for anything involving Knox & Sollecito to go away at this point, although I very much hope I'm wrong.
I feel the same way re the ECHR and again feel if they haven't responded at this point, then they won't respond at all, less it's some 11th hour thing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 96

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Regarding the request from the ECtHR for documentation from the Italian State (to be provided by Sept 17), as far as I recall there was a list, which included the Boninsegna motivations, and other sentencing reports. (This was asked for in the French ECtHR doc, to which I think Ergon posted a link earlier).

So there is nothing to be provided by the Italian State which requires more than a fax machine. It's not as if any new decisions or opinions are sought, (and even if they've lost the original stuff they can find it all on tmomk wiki!) I do hope they haven't forgotten to send the material, but since there is nothing new in it it is unlikely to attract press attention IMO.

They, iirc, also asked Dalla Vedova for some input, and this may consist of something 'newly written'. Even so, I doubt that the ECtHR would make it public before they have moved onto the next stage of their examination, or even before they come to their final decision.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
Regarding the request from the ECtHR for documentation from the Italian State (to be provided by Sept 17), as far as I recall there was a list, which included the Boninsegna motivations, and other sentencing reports. (This was asked for in the French ECtHR doc, to which I think Ergon posted a link earlier).

So there is nothing to be provided by the Italian State which requires more than a fax machine. It's not as if any new decisions or opinions are sought, (and even if they've lost the original stuff they can find it all on tmomk wiki!) I do hope they haven't forgotten to send the material, but since there is nothing new in it it is unlikely to attract press attention IMO.

They, iirc, also asked Dalla Vedova for some input, and this may consist of something 'newly written'. Even so, I doubt that the ECtHR would make it public before they have moved onto the next stage of their examination, or even before they come to their final decision.


Should have news by Monday 19th, and copies posted here and TMOMK soonest.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:15 pm   Post subject: AMANDA KNOX DOCUMENTARY REVIEW   

Another review of the Netflix documentary "Amanda Knox" from the Guardian
Amanda Knox review – slick documentary excels with unprecedented access
4 / 5 stars
Quote:
Thanks to her extreme representation within the media, Amanda Knox – the former US student twice convicted and twice acquitted for the murder of British roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy – has sometimes seemed like a villain invented by a screenwriter. The sexually deviant femme fatale with an appetite for blood....

..We also hear from Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, a man who similarly allowed the intensity of the case to affect his ego, as well as Knox’s ex-boyfriend Rafaelle Sollecito. But it’s hearing from Knox herself that’s clearly of most appeal, and she is given ample opportunity to explain her story from beginning to end. She’s a conflicting presence, at times sympathetic and at others, too earnest. The style of the film is often so slick that it becomes hard to distinguish genuine emotion, as the interviews seem a little over-stylised..

.... Some might be frustrated about the lack of new information concerning what was already a well-documented case. But the film adds depth to what we know and refrains from a third act faux-discovery, as in Bart Layton’s The Imposter. It’s a carefully balanced and frightening film with Knox a terrifyingly unknowable character at the grisly centre.


The review, by the Guardian's US arts editor Benjamin Lee Fraser looks like a copy paste job of the documentary producers press release (and repeated by several other 'reviews' I've read) The problem with TIFF is the large number of movies released, and most critics just don't have the time. Looks like Guardian gave him marching orders though. 4 out of 5 stars? OK then.

Slut shaming, bad media, unknowable protagonist? Already done and not original any more.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I think as well as requesting all the judges' reports, the Strasbourg court submitted a questionnaire asking, for instance, if Knox was provided with a qualified neutral interpreter at the interview, and when she was informed of the calunnia charge.

Although they've found Knox's application admissible in the first instance, they want this information for the necessary review before they decide whether to proceed to a hearing (or to a paper decision without a hearing). It would be strange if Italy failed to respond, given the Court of Cassation's rather strong view on the calunnia. But it's not a matter of simply faxing or emailing because the judges' reports must be professionally translated into English or French, the only languages recognised by the court.

The Strasbourg judges might have an 'Oh yeah? / Vraiment?' reaction to Cassation's claim that nothing they say can alter the conviction. Then again, if they do get their heads round all the reports and note that, even in the view of the acquitting panel, Knox falsely blamed an innocent man not merely to end the questioning but to divert suspicion from an associate who could incriminate her...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline whatswisdom


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:52 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Perhaps you could take your discussions to pm? Take a little break to revive and recharge and come back! We all get tired once in a while from following this long legal saga and feel disconcerted and upset.
Quote:
Now the Italian Government will have until 17 September to provide its assessments to the Court which will then make its decision.
]
guermantes, Thanks for this. Perhaps folks could participate in separate threads for other cases. Makes more sense to me as I come on here daily craving a glimmer of hope for justice for Meredith. A thread for WM3; Avery, etc. would make me more likely to get more involved in those cases, which I find interesting. I'd rather see this forum stay on topic of fighting to delegitimize murderers Knox & Sollecito (especially in the U.S)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
Regarding the request from the ECtHR for documentation from the Italian State (to be provided by Sept 17), as far as I recall there was a list, which included the Boninsegna motivations, and other sentencing reports. (This was asked for in the French ECtHR doc, to which I think Ergon posted a link earlier).


Thanks for this, Sallyoo. Ergon, would you kindly re-post the link to the French ECHR doc Sallyoo mentioned above? I'm especially interested in seeing the list of documentation that the ECHR requested. I must have missed it somehow.

Ergon wrote:
Should have news by Monday 19th, and copies posted here and TMOMK soonest.


Thanks Ergon. I hope you'll find out what's going on...
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:47 pm   Post subject: ECtHR request   

Here. posted again, guermantes http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/E ... _29.4.2016
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: AMANDA KNOX DOCUMENTARY REVIEW   

Ergon wrote:
Another review of the Netflix documentary "Amanda Knox" from the Guardian
Amanda Knox review – slick documentary excels with unprecedented access
4 / 5 stars
Quote:
Thanks to her extreme representation within the media, Amanda Knox – the former US student twice convicted and twice acquitted for the murder of British roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy – has sometimes seemed like a villain invented by a screenwriter. The sexually deviant femme fatale with an appetite for blood....

..We also hear from Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, a man who similarly allowed the intensity of the case to affect his ego, as well as Knox’s ex-boyfriend Rafaelle Sollecito. But it’s hearing from Knox herself that’s clearly of most appeal, and she is given ample opportunity to explain her story from beginning to end. She’s a conflicting presence, at times sympathetic and at others, too earnest. The style of the film is often so slick that it becomes hard to distinguish genuine emotion, as the interviews seem a little over-stylised..

.... Some might be frustrated about the lack of new information concerning what was already a well-documented case. But the film adds depth to what we know and refrains from a third act faux-discovery, as in Bart Layton’s The Imposter. It’s a carefully balanced and frightening film with Knox a terrifyingly unknowable character at the grisly centre.


The review, by the Guardian's US arts editor Benjamin Lee Fraser looks like a copy paste job of the documentary producers press release (and repeated by several other 'reviews' I've read) The problem with TIFF is the large number of movies released, and most critics just don't have the time. Looks like Guardian gave him marching orders though. 4 out of 5 stars? OK then.

Slut shaming, bad media, unknowable protagonist? Already done and not original any more.


Now you beat me to it, Ergon, I was just about to post about this.

Guardian, once again, has closed the discussion thread very soon and deleted lots of comments, which were probably contrary to their opinion of the case - did anyone happen to see or copy any of the now deleted comments?

I've seen them do the same with an article on MH17; they wouldn't let people post too many comments deviating from the Western, Russia-bashing narrative and when I happened to see the article, only a few hours after the publication, they'd already closed the discussion. They are probably doing it all the time with all their articles, but one only notices it when one follows a case or subject closely. I guess they are a PR company these days, not a serious news organization that presents both sides of any conflict.

And then there are those folks there making strange claims like these - is this a new PR talking point by AK folks? There have been similar comments in connection with other Netflix articles, too. This can't be true, right? They didn't win any civil suits and no-one has lost any houses?

Quote:
jamesarc -->Hugh Reynolds 5h ago

Perhaps. But the Kerchers did win the multi-million civil trial, and it has little chance of being overturned and is far from paid in full. Knox's parents lost their home and are still paying.


Well, at least there are some comments more to my liking such as this one:

Quote:
Batcow 6h ago

If you think that Knox is innocent, write down your reasons on a piece of paper, tie it to 4.5 kg rock and throw it up to me through a closed window 4m off the ground.
Then climb up the brickwork and unlatch the window from the outside so you can get in, in spite of there being lower windows available. Bring some cleaning products with you that you bought at a nearby shop having waited hours for it to open. Then we can discuss.


Last edited by Rumpole on Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

re the ECtHR application, the court had the following information request and questions to the parties:

Quote:
DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
1. La requérante est invitée à produire une copie de l’arrêt du tribunal de Pérouse du 5 décembre 2009, concernant sa condamnation pour dénonciation calomnieuse, ainsi qu’une copie du recours en appel et du pourvoi en cassation concernant cette procédure.

2. Les parties sont invitées à indiquer si l’arrêt du tribunal de Florence du 14 janvier 2016 a été attaqué ou s’il est devenu définitif ainsi qu’à fournir une copie des documents pertinents.


Google translated into English:

Quote:
INFORMATION REQUEST
1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding his conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure.

2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016 was attacked or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.


And the questions:

Quote:
QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES
1. La requérante a-t-elle épuisé les voies de recours internes qui lui étaient ouvertes pour se plaindre de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les tapes (scappellotti) prétendument subies, et des articles 6 §§ 1 et 3 a), c) et e) et 8 de la Convention ?

2. Dans l’affirmative :
a) la requérante a-t-elle été soumise, en violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, à des traitements inhumains ou dégradants ?
b) La requérante a-t-elle, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 a) de la Convention, été informée, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu’elle comprenait et d’une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation portée contre elle pour dénonciation calomnieuse ?

c) La requérante a-t-elle pu avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention, notamment lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 ?
d) La requérante a-t-elle obtenu l’assistance gratuite d’un interprète, au sens de l’article 6 § 3 e) de la Convention ?
e) La pression psychologique prétendument subie par la requérante lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007, a-t-elle porté atteinte au droit de celle-ci à un procès équitable, au sens de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention, et au droit au respect de sa vie privée, protégé par l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention ?


Google translated into English:

Quote:
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. The applicant has she exhausted the domestic remedies available to him to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the steps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

2. If so:
a) Does the applicant have been submitted, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, inhuman or degrading treatment?
b) The applicant she has, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, was informed in promptly, in a language they understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charge against him for false accusation?

c) Does the applicant have had the assistance of counsel of his choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during interrogation of 6 November 2007?
d) Has the applicant obtained the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?
e) The psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during interrogations of 6 November 2007, she has violated the right of the latter to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?


ETA: added the source.

Source:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/E ... _29.4.2016


Last edited by Rumpole on Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:11 pm   Post subject: EUROPEAN COURT SEARCH ENGINE   

The European Court for Human Rights "has recently created a new search engine (“SOP” - State of Proceedings) which allows anyone to find out what stage has been reached in the proceedings concerning an application. It provides information on all cases that have been allocated to a judicial formation and are not anonymous. The information will be accessible two months after each procedural event.

The search engine exists in English, French, Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Portuguese, but will shortly be available on the “Applicants” pages, in 36 official languages of the Council of Europe member States."

Search for a case
When you enter the Application number 76577/13 this is what I just got. It's updated regularly but I don't know if that's "two months after the event" so may be the fastest way to know when the Italian Dept. of Justice has responded is through us again ;)

ETA: I've been informed a response has been filed by State of Italy. Waiting to receive copies when available. Some time next week?


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hennesy


Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:52 pm

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I agree with Guermantes, Max, please don't leave, it is ok to disagree once in a while! Dont forget we are all here for the same purpose we deeply feel and share: to expose the killers of Meredith who unfortunately got away with it. And we all wait and hope that the injustice will be somehow reversed, in the meantime we exchange ideas, share our thoughts and our grief of their latest acquittal.

I personally am very happy to have this forum, it would be much harder for me to cope with this injustice if it weren't for you.

I am thinking of going to Milan on October 18th to see Raffaele, ask him a couple of questions if I can, anyone from Italy who wants to go?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

We have to remember all cases have to be assessed on its own merits. Just because one case is a 'wrongful conviction' it doesn't follow all of them are, or vice versa.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: EUROPEAN COURT SEARCH ENGINE   

Ergon wrote:
The European Court for Human Rights "has recently created a new search engine (“SOP” - State of Proceedings) which allows anyone to find out what stage has been reached in the proceedings concerning an application. It provides information on all cases that have been allocated to a judicial formation and are not anonymous. The information will be accessible two months after each procedural event.

The search engine exists in English, French, Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Portuguese, but will shortly be available on the “Applicants” pages, in 36 official languages of the Council of Europe member States."

Search for a case
When you enter the Application number 76577/13 this is what I just got. It's updated regularly but I don't know if that's "two months after the event" so may be the fastest way to know when the Italian Dept. of Justice has responded is through us again ;)

ETA: I've been informed a response has been filed by State of Italy. Waiting to receive copies when available. Some time next week?


Glad to see Italy have responded, rather than offering AK a 'settlement' : the other recommended way to deal with an ECHR dispute.



b-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hennesy


Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:52 pm

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Does everyone agree with me that Amanda's new puppet boyfriend looks at least as creepy as she does?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 96

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Very sorry, I do find this board close to impossible to use, so quoting something Rumpole (I think) said in French, and then in google translate - well, it is a nonsense translation.

The French, with (in brackets) an Italian word reads:
pour se plaindre de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les tapes (scappellotti) prétendument subies, et des articles 6 §§ 1 et 3 a), c) et e) et 8 de la Convention ?

The translation provided by Google reads:
complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the steps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

Now scappelotti in any anyone's book translates as slaps. as in the sort of slap you might (in the past) have inflicted on a disobedient child, and which is what Knox (latterly) complained of. The google translate as 'steps' makes absolutely no sense. I do rather despair of the undoubtedly well meaning people from 'across the pond' (or even in perfidious albion) who rely on 'nuances' delivered by Google translate!

Anyway (bored now) I do take Hugo's point that maybe the Italian State's response must be rendered in French or English. They'll probably use Google translate! At this point I lose the will to live.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
Anyway (bored now) I do take Hugo's point that maybe the Italian State's response must be rendered in French or English. They'll probably use Google translate! At this point I lose the will to live.

Good question, Sallyoo. According to Questions and Answers
Quote:
You may write in one of the Court’s official languages (English and French) or in an official language of one of the States that have ratified the Convention.

However,
Quote:
Proceedings are conducted in writing. You will be informed in writing of any decision taken by the Court. Public hearings are exceptional.
and I believe those proceedings are only communicated in one of the official languages. But the state's response can be communicated in the official language of the state. Still looking into that :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:10 am   Post subject: ECtHR PROCEDURES   

However, according to this Your Application
Quote:
„„* If I apply to the Court, does it mean I do not have to
comply with the final judgment given by the domestic
courts?

- No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must
comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you
lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.

So, Knox is still liable and should have paid Patrick Lumumba the damages plus costs awarded to him. If I were the Italian respondent, I might point that out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
Very sorry, I do find this board close to impossible to use, so quoting something Rumpole (I think) said in French, and then in google translate - well, it is a nonsense translation.

The French, with (in brackets) an Italian word reads:
pour se plaindre de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les tapes (scappellotti) prétendument subies, et des articles 6 §§ 1 et 3 a), c) et e) et 8 de la Convention ?

The translation provided by Google reads:
complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the steps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

Now scappelotti in any anyone's book translates as slaps. as in the sort of slap you might (in the past) have inflicted on a disobedient child, and which is what Knox (latterly) complained of. The google translate as 'steps' makes absolutely no sense. I do rather despair of the undoubtedly well meaning people from 'across the pond' (or even in perfidious albion) who rely on 'nuances' delivered by Google translate!

Anyway (bored now) I do take Hugo's point that maybe the Italian State's response must be rendered in French or English. They'll probably use Google translate! At this point I lose the will to live.


Couldn't our French speakers, such as Skeptical Bystander, Thoughtful and others, translate it into English for us? I guess they are no longer around.... It's a short text and would be an easy job for them to do (I assume). I'm reading Google translation right now - better than nothing.

It's interesting to note that Ghirga and Dalla Vedova have submitted to the ECHR the Motivations of Knox's acquittal of the charge of slandering Perugia police officers (the sentencing report was released in April 2016; excepts from it are quoted under i) in the ECHR paper), but they have "forgotten" to provide a copy of the final Cassazione ruling (issued in September 2015, i.e. half a year earlier) in which the SC judges confirm her conviction for falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba. No, it wasn't deliberate of course. ;) I mean no disparagement to the excellent Knox lawyers, but in so important a matter it was certainly an oversight not to have procured that document. A bit biased, aren't they?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hennesy wrote:
Does everyone agree with me that Amanda's new puppet boyfriend looks at least as creepy as she does?


Hi Hennesy, I'm all with you on this one. I predict those two weirdos will pen a book together. Granted, she is more of a weirdo than him but judging by his beard he is well on his way. A perfect match, I'd say. ( :roll: ) Is he related to the Robinson family, the publishers of several community newspapers in Seattle? Perhaps a son of one of the 5 Robinson brothers? Two of the brothers gave Knox a job as a local reporter for the WSH and other small newspapers.

I quoted from Knox's review of Chris Robinson's book, War of the Encyclopaedists, here: viewtopic.php?style=6&p=127206#p127206

A couple of posts about the Robinson family: HERE and HERE

See also: Robinson Newspapers
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Guermantes,
Afaik he's the owner's son, as that's what was said on .org.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 290

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
Anyway (bored now) I do take Hugo's point that maybe the Italian State's response must be rendered in French or English. They'll probably use Google translate! At this point I lose the will to live.

Good question, Sallyoo. According to Questions and Answers
Quote:
You may write in one of the Court’s official languages (English and French) or in an official language of one of the States that have ratified the Convention.

However,
Quote:
Proceedings are conducted in writing. You will be informed in writing of any decision taken by the Court. Public hearings are exceptional.
and I believe those proceedings are only communicated in one of the official languages. But the state's response can be communicated in the official language of the state. Still looking into that :)


I was thinking more of the motivation reports. Unless the court can guarantee that all the judges will be able to read any given language, presumably the reports have to be translated.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

sallyoo, I considered translating the ECtHR document when it was first published, but didn't see any point as the google version is mostly passable even though there are, as always, some non-sensical translations of words (such as the good old Biscotti-Biscuit in most of the motivations reports). As for scappelotti, I presumed that by now everyone who follows the case knows that they are slaps but maybe that's not the case. In any case, even though I saw the erroneous translation (steps) I didn't want to touch the "pure" google version at all. Maybe I should've.

Btw, I thought we are on the same side of the pond, i.e in Europe; and I at least don't think very highly of google but I see it as a useful tool in producing okayish translations and certainly it's much better now than it was ten years ago. Would you be willing to do the editing of the text, if someone translated it from French to English?

I've always understood that you Brits and Americans are forced to study French at school, the way we are forced to study Swedish here (most everybody just hates it!, it's a minority language here), is that not the case anymore?
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

As for the ECtHR case, I don't expect any more that any justice would take place in anything that has to do with the United States, i.e. I believe they'll probably find a way to sort of exonerate AK from everything and award her some minor damages (paid by the Italian state). As you know, they can't squash the Italian verdict, they can only tell the Italian judiciary that they erred and let's behave better in the future etc. etc.

Stumbled recently on this article (from April 13, 2013) about the way the United Nations International Court behaved, with a little help from American judges and prosecutors, in connection with a Yugoslav war crimes case, and it made me even more dismayed that anything resembling justice could be achieved in this AK case any more.

Elisabeth Rehn, a Finnish politician, former defence minister, former presidential candidate (didn't vote for her because she's right-wing, pro-Nato, pro-US, and because she worked as a defence minister) was recently interviewed by the HS (Helsingin Sanomat) and she mentioned this case, how she as the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina witnessed against both Serb and Croat war criminals , but in the court only the Russian-backed Serbs were found guilty whereas the US-backed Croats were cleared of all charges. Justice the American way. (And war crimes by Nato soldiers are, of course, never tried let alone punished, nor are the war crimes by US, France, UK or any other US allies.)

Like AK, this guy, general Gotovina, was also sentenced to 24 years behind bars. And like AK, he was cleared on appeal.

Quote:
Croatian General Ante Gotovina was sentenced to 24 years imprisonment for war crimes.
Quite unexpectedly, he was released.
Journalist Jussi Konttinen examines how the United States influenced the Tribunal in The Hague.

Victor's Justice

http://www.icty.org/en
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
re the ECtHR application....
Quote:
QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES
1. La requérante a-t-elle épuisé les voies de recours internes qui lui étaient ouvertes pour se plaindre de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les tapes (scappellotti) prétendument subies, et des articles 6 §§ 1 et 3 a), c) et e) et 8 de la Convention ?

2. Dans l’affirmative :
a) la requérante a-t-elle été soumise, en violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, à des traitements inhumains ou dégradants ?
b) La requérante a-t-elle, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 a) de la Convention, été informée, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu’elle comprenait et d’une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation portée contre elle pour dénonciation calomnieuse ?

c) La requérante a-t-elle pu avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention, notamment lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 ?
d) La requérante a-t-elle obtenu l’assistance gratuite d’un interprète, au sens de l’article 6 § 3 e) de la Convention ?
e) La pression psychologique prétendument subie par la requérante lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007, a-t-elle porté atteinte au droit de celle-ci à un procès équitable, au sens de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention, et au droit au respect de sa vie privée, protégé par l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention ?




First draft translation:

Quote:
Questions for the Parties

1. Has the appellant exhausted all means of internal appeal that were open to them to plead violation of Article 3 of the Convention, regarding the tapes [slaps] (scappellotti [cuffs]) allegedly suffered, and of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (c) and (e) and 8 of the Convention?

2. [If] In the affirmative :

a) Has the appellant suffered, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, inhumane or degrading treatment?

b) Has the appellant, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention, been informed, at the earliest opportunity, in a language they understand and in a detailed way, of the nature and reason of the charge brought against them for perpetrating the offence of calunnia?

c) Has the appellant been able to receive the assistance of a lawyer of their own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, notably during the police questioning of 6 November 2007 ?

d) Did the appellant receive the free assistance of an interpreter, in the sense of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention ?

e) Regarding the alleged psychological pressure suffered by the appellant during the police questioning of 6 November 2007, did it undermine their right to a fair trial, in the sense of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and of the right to respect for their privacy, protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention ?


GoogleTrans is not that far off, overall.
My understanding is that GoogleTrans is based on the legal translation corpus of the European Union. If so, it should be fairly close in legal matters, to start with (given what the EU legal translation Directorate has already accomplished.)


- - -
One of the disadvantages of a court being in a system where precedent is not used, is that the same matters came up over and over again ("repeat" cases), clogging up the system.

One of the advantages of such a system with all these repeat cases is that there should be opportunity for comparing and contrasting multiple translations of the same phrases.


Edited to add:
"Police questioning" (as in an, official, 'interview') is perhaps the cart before the horse. A conversation with questions in it (with a volunteer, to boot) is completely different to, e.g., a PACE interview.

As a sidenote, the case of (legally relevant) questions being asked by an undercover police officer is also completely different.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In the Leosini interview, the reason for not flushing the toilet, from the way Rudy keeps coming back to it repeatedly, is extremely important to him. He also didn’t fall asleep on the toilet, as if drunk, either, like the boys in the apartment downstairs saw him do once. He was listening to music (on an iPod that ultimately ended up in a skip somewhere - easy come, easy go, it seems).

It’s as if there is a moat of ‘reasons’ around Rudy’s castle, a psychological pressure wall acting as a barrier to keep something out (or in).

Hellmann used the unflushed toilet to refer to Rudy as ‘anti-social’, in the sense of Rudy being ‘not brought up well’, ‘un-educated (in the norms of polite society)’, ‘lacking etiquette’. That stung.

By comparison and constrast, Amanda didn’t flush the toilet either (in everyday cottage life), yet she doesn’t treat that as of any importance at all to her self-image (assuming one exists). More important to her is the idea of her ‘friend’, but the way that topic is talked about makes it sound like another moat.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The film


“received rave reviews for its in-depth investigation of every aspect of the Knox saga”
[Business Insider], Jason Guerrasio, 13 Sep 2016
– somewhat gushing: reviews from who? What level of grade school?: one almost suspects a masquerading of ‘raving reviews’, and ‘in-depth [freshman] investigation’ by the rookie directors; ‘every aspect’ might be a bit hopeful as a pitch – how long is this documentary? If it’s only about Amanda’s DNA on Raffaele’s otherwise clean(ed) kitchen knife, then that will fit. But what about everything else? Anything else? And is it a case of ‘piecemeal fashion’ approach to the evidence, or examining ‘the totality of the evidence’? Layman-ising stuff is not a particularly good way to convey information, but it does allow drama to enter from the wings. Unsurprising that the directors are not professional advocates, i.e., lawyers.




“how crucial mistakes in the handling of the crime scene and a false confession by Knox led to complete dysfunction in the case”
– bare assertion (‘mistakes’, ‘false confession’, ‘dysfunction’) and pseudo-journalese adjectivation (‘crucial’, ‘complete’) do not help the viewer decide whether the conclusion reached is correct or not; there is no basis for evaluation. It is an ad, in other words.



“The filmmakers used graphics to point out that Knox was never in the room where Kercher died, according to the DNA present in the room."
– I wasn’t present either, using the same logic; yet, if I’m washing the victim’s blood off my hands in the room next to the victim’s, then that’s an opportunity for what TV-watchers call “a fridge moment”.


“They also showed that DNA evidence linking Knox to the knife thought to be used as the murder weapon was inconclusive.”
– “linking” and “thought to be” are clever choices of words; the directors may have over-simplified that part of their presentation. The “inconclusive” part suffers from the bare assertion fallacy.










“slick documentary” “sharp look”
[The Guardian], Benjamin Lee, 15 Sep 2016
– ‘slick’ turns out to be a perjorative; ‘sharp’ is journalese adjectivation.


“The film, which often plays out like a narrative thriller”
– the irony incarnated by the directors is not fully brought out by the article writer; in any case, the drama of the chase for information is always susceptible to being ‘sexed up’, as the politicians say. Banal is boring. Plain is plain.




“Through tireless research and a patchwork of audio and video footage, obtained with extraordinary determination, McGinn and Blackhurst have tried to assemble the ultimate account of a familiar and persistent story”
– ‘tireless’ sounds good, it endorses the product better than ‘bored’ or ‘partisan’; ‘patchwork’ and ‘tried to assemble’ hint at amateurism, though; ‘extraordinary’ remains unexplained – if the directors have indeed sexed it up, it won’t be ‘the ultimate account’, just another piece of media bandwagon self-puffery.


“Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, a man who similarly allowed the intensity of the case to affect his ego”
– bare assertion fallacy again: the evidence on which this conclusion is based is to be found where, on the cutting room floor? In the directors’ imagination? The storyboard, perhaps?


“The style of the film is often so slick that it becomes hard to distinguish genuine emotion, as the interviews seem a little over-stylised.”
– a hint at sexing up, the make-up artist of narrative construction.


“It’s a carefully balanced and frightening film with Knox a terrifyingly unknowable character at the grisly centre.”
– ‘carefully balanced’ implies an acquaintance with the evidence, which is not demonstrated, so an assertion; ‘frightening’ is not inapt, since it has multiple meanings, some of which were subconsciously selected; the rest of the sentence, albeit unintentionally, begins to shift to a victim-focus.




“ “I think she just saw us as two young guys, and we weren’t the stereotypical people that were probably reaching out to her at the time. We didn’t have any preconceived ideas about her or the case.” – Blackhurst”
[LA Times], Amy Kaufman, 16 Sep 2016
– for the uninitiated, ‘the stereotypical people’ are the white-knight paunch brigade, a lot with a beef with the law, and most a bee in their bonnet.

“Neither McGinn nor Blackhurst was particularly familiar with the ins and outs of the Knox saga before they began working on the documentary.”
– there would therefore be a surprise, indeed a betrayal of trust, among the viewership if there were evidence to the contrary lying around waiting to be served up. Also, not being ‘particularly familiar with the ins and outs’ has a certain truth value, depending on how deep ‘in’ and ‘out’ are taken to refer, and ‘particularly’ is a very useful word in this context, in vague-ing up about whatever crosses the border into the land of familiarity. Not being familiar before the documentary started is a standard catch-all get-out, but, already, these hints consistently pointing to fakery are starting to accumulate on the camel’s back.

= = =
It may be the reporters have this view of the directors, and the directors themselves (as well as the film) may be completely different. Commonsense and experience entail that multiple sources all viralling as if there were an ad-construct, would probably indicate that it is, indeed, akin to an ad, so the chances of the film to any meaningful extent conveying truth or truthiness is likely to be low. A smudged distortion of reality, is what the meta-review of the film is shaping up to be.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
All we are doing is arguing about the gossips of some teenage girls which only proves my point.


When you make such a Hellmannesque comment on PMF, you can expect to be challenged. After all PMF is a discussion forum and there's no obligation to agree with everything someone says. You can't just dismiss the sworn testimony of witnesses just because they are teenage girls. It would be like dismissing the testimony of Curatolo because he's a homeless drug addict. It's prejudicial and illogical and in Italy it would violate the Criminal Procedure Code. I'd be interested to hear your reasons for believing these teenage girls are not credible witnesses.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
I have no further desire to discuss the WM3 so no probs, guermantes. ;)
I thought prosecutor Crini had responded re the ECHR? And are we absolutely sure this is being reported accurately? They're definitely hearing it and not asking Della Vedova if his client exhausted all options with Italy? Or has it moved beyond that to an actual hearing? If so then the Italians have two days to make a response, assuming Crini didn't respond and I read wrongly. If they haven't responded by now, they probably won't, legitimizing Knox's innocence fraud all the more. I've lost all respect for their judiciary anyway after Cassation's fiasco so nothing will surprise me at this stage.



It's quite conventional in legal circles to not respond until right up to the deadline. The rationale is not to let the other party see your response in advance of you seeing theirs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
Anyway (bored now) I do take Hugo's point that maybe the Italian State's response must be rendered in French or English. They'll probably use Google translate! At this point I lose the will to live.

Good question, Sallyoo. According to Questions and Answers
Quote:
You may write in one of the Court’s official languages (English and French) or in an official language of one of the States that have ratified the Convention.

However,
Quote:
Proceedings are conducted in writing. You will be informed in writing of any decision taken by the Court. Public hearings are exceptional.
and I believe those proceedings are only communicated in one of the official languages. But the state's response can be communicated in the official language of the state. Still looking into that :)


I was thinking more of the motivation reports. Unless the court can guarantee that all the judges will be able to read any given language, presumably the reports have to be translated.


We are told the "appeal" which really jumped the gun and didnt follow Italian law is expected to be a fail because (1) the Knox defenses filed no complaint 2007-2008, they ignored Knox; if she had a case then they could be charged for ignoring her; (2) Marasca & Bruno (really) shot down the Knox "appeal" re fingering Patrick in advance; the language is somewhere very near the end.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
hugo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
Anyway (bored now) I do take Hugo's point that maybe the Italian State's response must be rendered in French or English. They'll probably use Google translate! At this point I lose the will to live.

Good question, Sallyoo. According to Questions and Answers
Quote:
You may write in one of the Court’s official languages (English and French) or in an official language of one of the States that have ratified the Convention.

However,
Quote:
Proceedings are conducted in writing. You will be informed in writing of any decision taken by the Court. Public hearings are exceptional.
and I believe those proceedings are only communicated in one of the official languages. But the state's response can be communicated in the official language of the state. Still looking into that :)


I was thinking more of the motivation reports. Unless the court can guarantee that all the judges will be able to read any given language, presumably the reports have to be translated.


We are told the "appeal" which really jumped the gun and didnt follow Italian law is expected to be a fail because (1) the Knox defenses filed no complaint 2007-2008, they ignored Knox; if she had a case then they could be charged for ignoring her; (2) Marasca & Bruno (really) shot down the Knox "appeal" re fingering Patrick in advance; the language is somewhere very near the end.



The ECHR shouldn't automatically accept Marasca-Bruno's reasoning, if they are genuinely assessing unfair trials, for M-B on the one hand say the investigation was astonishingly flawed, but then in the next breath say the procedure regarding the Patrick Lumumba confession/accusation is fully sound. They cannot have their cake and eat it, and this is one of the reasons M-B's Motivational Report is complete junk. It is full of internal contradictions so for the ECHR to accept AK's 'human rights' were breached when she made the confession it could not at the same time accept that the calunnia charge was sound. It is transparent the Supreme Court are aware of the contradiction and it shows a self-serving lack of integrity in claiming 'breaches' as grounds for acquittal, yet then denying there is any case for human rights abuses.

We need to be circumspect in supporting Marasca-Bruno on the one hand but then rejecting it on the other.

It's crap. Let's not use it to support our position.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:00 pm   Post subject: ECtHR APPLICATION   

Hi all,

Re the ECtHR application Knox v. Italie 76577/13 I hesitate to say how it will go but the questions asked by the court do make me wonder. Until we see the Italian response, whenever, it might well go Knox's way. If you read the full ECHR Communication / 29.4.2016 I would not characterize it as a sure thing. My right click Bing translation was quite understandable, BTW.

As to the stage the application is at, I don't believe an admissibility decision has been made. According to this flow chart The Life Of An Application it appears to be at the "Initial Analysis" stage (see flow chart) where further documents have been requested of the parties. The application was "Communicated to the Government for observations" 29/04/2016


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: ECtHR APPLICATION   

Ergon wrote:
Hi all,

Re the ECtHR application Knox v. Italie 76577/13 I hesitate to say how it will go but the questions asked by the court do make me wonder. Until we see the Italian response, whenever, it might well go Knox's way. If you read the full ECHR Communication / 29.4.2016 I would not characterize it as a sure thing. My right click Bing translation was quite understandable, BTW.

As to the stage the application is at, I don't believe an admissibility decision has been made. According to this flow chart The Life Of An Application it appears to be at the "Initial Analysis" stage (see flow chart) where further documents have been requested of the parties. The application was "Communicated to the Government for observations" 29/04/2016



Even if it's received an early response, it wouldn't update the application stage, nor assess the case, until the set deadline has been reached (which is today, not a legal working day), so I'd say not until at least Wednesday next week.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
hugo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
Anyway (bored now) I do take Hugo's point that maybe the Italian State's response must be rendered in French or English. They'll probably use Google translate! At this point I lose the will to live.

Good question, Sallyoo. According to Questions and Answers
Quote:
You may write in one of the Court’s official languages (English and French) or in an official language of one of the States that have ratified the Convention.

However,
Quote:
Proceedings are conducted in writing. You will be informed in writing of any decision taken by the Court. Public hearings are exceptional.
and I believe those proceedings are only communicated in one of the official languages. But the state's response can be communicated in the official language of the state. Still looking into that :)


I was thinking more of the motivation reports. Unless the court can guarantee that all the judges will be able to read any given language, presumably the reports have to be translated.


We are told the "appeal" which really jumped the gun and didnt follow Italian law is expected to be a fail because (1) the Knox defenses filed no complaint 2007-2008, they ignored Knox; if she had a case then they could be charged for ignoring her; (2) Marasca & Bruno (really) shot down the Knox "appeal" re fingering Patrick in advance; the language is somewhere very near the end.



The ECHR shouldn't automatically accept Marasca-Bruno's reasoning, if they are genuinely assessing unfair trials, for M-B on the one hand say the investigation was astonishingly flawed, but then in the next breath say the procedure regarding the Patrick Lumumba confession/accusation is fully sound. They cannot have their cake and eat it, and this is one of the reasons M-B's Motivational Report is complete junk. It is full of internal contradictions so for the ECHR to accept AK's 'human rights' were breached when she made the confession it could not at the same time accept that the calunnia charge was sound. It is transparent the Supreme Court are aware of the contradiction and it shows a self-serving lack of integrity in claiming 'breaches' as grounds for acquittal, yet then denying there is any case for human rights abuses.

We need to be circumspect in supporting Marasca-Bruno on the one hand but then rejecting it on the other.

It's crap. Let's not use it to support our position.


Thanks for the lecture but what's this "we" and "our"? TJMK went to great lengths to translate and explain the weaknesses in the report, but that was not what I was talking about.

I was referring to what we have heard from Italy, that for the moment at least Marasca/Bruno is the last word. That last word has a lot of meaning for the ECHR because they can only "take off" after the last word from Italy is in. ECHR have no choice but to take it into account.

Quote:
It is transparent the Supreme Court are aware of the contradiction and it shows a self-serving lack of integrity in claiming 'breaches' as grounds for acquittal, yet then denying there is any case for human rights abuses.


One has to talk about First Chambers and Fifth Chambers as there is a huge divide. Bongiorno managed to get a decision pointed at Fifth Chambers and they hijacked the appeal - murder cases are not normally their thing, and Bruno was pretty ill, and the ridicule of the March announcement made the Fifth Chambers very scared. That is why there is a little bit of climbing back.

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:40 pm   Post subject: NETFIX DOC EARLY IMPRESSIONS   

Early impressions:

Saw "Amanda Knox" last night at the Toronto International Film Festival. Toronto is a film city with production everywhere, and fans buy block tickets to watch 20+ features. Overhearing conversation before in the line up, most didn't know anything about the case. They just love documentaries.

Nice production, editing, pacing. But when many critics cite "slick production values" they aren't being complimentary, they're expressing reservation, because if they like the content have to say why. It was obvious many reviews that came out immediately September 09 were based on the production company press releases, since they were remarkably alike.

The story was driven by Knox, which works against her because the audience had a hard time engaging with her stylized delivery and forced emotion.

Documentary makers all have a POV, but yes, it's a betrayal of their audience when they hide bias. It simply isn't true they approached Knox from a strictly neutral POV. Producer Morse's history with the case would shock many if they knew. He claims he's been working with Brian McGinn and Rod Blackhurst for more than five years now, but Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was not aware of his involvement when he agreed to the interviews last year before the final verdict. Morse in fact made a series of angry abusive posts and tweets about the prosecutor and reporters writing about the case, as revealed previously. He deleted many of them to hide but they were copied and it's interesting to see it clearly reflected in the filmmakers story.

Several in the audience laughed at the reporter Nick Pisa, not Mignini. But as I feared, the editing and pacing might influence those who don't know anything about the case.

Rapid break away through the trials, appeals, evidence, then back to Knox. A progression from the dewy eyed blonde 'kid' to angry innocence project Knox.

Mignini explained himself well, but filmmaker pacing allowed Knox to set the narrative.

Several lines that Mignini objected to about Knox's lifestyle as being taken out of context were in the documentary. But they presented it as him stating he went according to the evidence alone, then cut away to him expressing himself as a Catholic and father while Knox and Sollecito insisted they had no motive.

So the subtext was see, his actions WERE about moral judgment without actually saying it.

Meredith was shown in silent video, apparently taken by Knox, as being "stunningly beautiful" and that was it.

The Kerchers were only shown in TV interviews though Arlene Kercher's comment at the end about the finished process was especially poignant. It showed how betrayed the family must feel.

Guede was portrayed by Knox as having carried out a series of burglaries. Therefore, it was a "botched burglary and rape".

She said she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba because she had been abused by the police. No one questioned that.

Conti and Vecchiotti got full on camera interviews repeating what the previous supreme and appeals court had already been thrown out i.e: "DNA in dust" and "contamination".

No one else got to speak from the prosecution side or why three courts had held against them. No, it was the fault of the UK media and rush to judgment, a point Knox and the filmmakers repeated many times.

There was applause at the end, a very Toronto moment. (We are polite). But no one seemed to be discussing it as they rushed out.

I ran into Stephen Morse in the lobby. He was trying to get people to hand in ballots voting for the documentary award. There were no takers. Said hi to him to confirm he was the producer, then left as I wanted to focus on the review I will be writing now..

I sent e-mail enquiries to the production company weeks ago to express these concerns. No reply was received as of this time.

This is a biased, misleading, error-filled documentary.

A complete review will be posted shortly.

(The writer is a moderator for this site and one of the editors of The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page the leading information site and complete repository of case files and reports for research into the murder of Meredith Kercher).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: NETFIX DOC EARLY IMPRESSIONS   

Ergon wrote:
Early impressions:

Saw "Amanda Knox" last night at the Toronto International Film Festival. Toronto is a film city with production everywhere, and fans buy block tickets to watch 20+ features. Overhearing conversation before in the line up, most didn't know anything about the case. They just love documentaries.

Nice production, editing, pacing. But when many critics cite "slick production values" they aren't being complimentary, they're expressing reservation, because if they like the content have to say why. It was obvious many reviews that came out immediately September 09 were based on the production company press releases, since they were remarkably alike.

The story was driven by Knox, which works against her because the audience had a hard time engaging with her stylized delivery and forced emotion.

Documentary makers all have a POV, but yes, it's a betrayal of their audience when they hide bias. It simply isn't true they approached Knox from a strictly neutral POV. Producer Morse's history with the case would shock many if they knew. He claims he's been working with Brian Ginn and Rod Blackhurst for more than five years now, but Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was not aware of his involvement when he agreed to the interviews last year before the final verdict. Morse in fact made a series of angry abusive posts and tweets about the prosecutor and reporters writing about the case, as revealed previously. He deleted many of them to hide but they were copied and it's interesting to see it clearly reflected in the filmmakers story.

Several in the audience laughed at the reporter Nick Pisa, not Mignini. But as I feared, the editing and pacing might influence those who don't know anything about the case.

Rapid break away through the trials, appeals, evidence, then back to Knox. A progression from the dewy eyed blonde 'kid' to angry innocence project Knox.

Mignini explained himself well, but filmmaker pacing allowed Knox to set the narrative..

Several lines that Mignini objected to about Knox's lifestyle as being taken out of context were in the documentary. But they presented it as him stating he went according to the evidence alone, then cut away to him expressing himself as a Catholic and father while Knox and Sollecito insisted they had no motive.

So the subtext was see, his actions WERE about moral judgment without actually saying it.

Meredith was shown in silent video, apparently taken by Knox, as being "stunningly beautiful" and that was it.

The Kerchers were only shown in TV interviews though Arlene Kercher's comment at the end about the finished process was especially poignant. It showed how betrayed the family must feel.

Guede was portrayed by Knox as having carried out a series of burglaries. Therefore, it was a "botched burglary and rape".

She said she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba because she had been abused by the police. No one questioned that.

Conti and Vecchiotti got full on camera interviews repeating what the previous supreme and appeals court had already been thrown out i.e: "DNA in dust" and "contamination".

No one else got to speak from the prosecution side or why three courts had held against them. No, it was the fault of the UK media and rush to judgment, a point Knox and the filmmakers repeated many times.

There was applause at the end, a very Toronto moment. (We are polite). But no one seemed to be discussing it as they rushed out.

I ran into Stephen Morse in the lobby. He was trying to get people to hand in ballots voting for the documentary award. There were no takers. Said hi to him to confirm he was the producer, then left as I wanted to focus on the review I will be writing now..

I sent e-mail enquiries to the production company weeks ago to express these concerns. No reply was received as of this time.

This is a biased, misleading, error-filled documentary.

A complete review will be posted shortly.

(The writer is a moderator for this site and one of the editors of The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page the leading information site and complete repository of case files and reports for research into the murder of Meredith Kercher).


Thank you!!! All we expected - and worse! Great notes for the review. Easier to imagine it now. Obviously there are a lot of lies of omission. Plenty of posts to come.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Peter. One more thing of note in the Netflix documentary: numerous errors and the poor quality of its research into the case itself. Not surprised since its producer Stephen Morse kept tweeting links to Bruce Fischer's site, LOL.

But I'll add while they included a reference to the Marasca-Bruno report in the closing credits, they reported its conclusions incorrectly. Knox was NOT found innocent or that she wasn't present that night. Will update you with pictures for your series..
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 241

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 5:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Australian news site has a report on the Netflix doc, mostly about what Mignini says, nothing new really but here you are:


New documentary explores story behind Amanda Knox’s trial over housemate’s murder


GIULIANO Mignini will never forget the crime scene.

The streaky, bloody handprint on the wall, the ripped bra and a leg protruding out from underneath a doona.

It looked like something from those forensic movies Mignini loved so much; they were the reason he became a public prosecutor.

But this was a truly horrifying and traumatic scene that would start his almost decade-long fight to prosecute the person who was guilty of this cold-blooded crime.

“I asked is a monster responsible for this?” Mignini said.

------------------

Mignini told the documentary when he looked at the crime scene, he began to speculate what happened to Meredith.

“Why was the girl covered with a blanket? A woman who has killed tends to cover the body of female victims, a man would never think to do this,” he postulates.

The thing he said stuck out most to him at the crime scene, was the smashed window.

“Nothing had been stolen and there was no evidence somebody climbed the wall (to get to the window).

“Immediately I could tell it was a staged break-in. It could have no other function than this. To throw off suspicion from someone who has a connection to the house.”

Mr Mignini began to suspect Amanda was guilty of the crime when he saw her cuddling her boyfriend outside the crime scene.

“They were comforting each other with an affection inappropriate for the moment,” he told the documentary.
Two days after the murder Amanda went back to the house with Mignini and he said she lost it.

“She started hitting the palms of her hands on her ears as if there was the memory of a noise, a sound, a scream — Meredith’s scream. Undoubtedly, I started to suspect
Amanda.”

-------------

Mignini became even more suspicious when Amanda blamed the murder on her boss, Patrick Lumumba, who gave her a job at his bar.

He was held in custody for two weeks before being released after his alibi checked out.

Mignini said in the documentary, the only reason to blame Lumumba “would be to divert the investigation away from her”.

Amanda has a specific weakness, according to Mignini.

He said she couldn’t stand being questioned by authorities and had an attitude, hostility and rebellion against police.

One of the main bits of evidence against Amanda was a knife found in her boyfriend’s house.

On the handle was Amanda’s DNA and on the blade, Meredith’s.

Mignini concocted this idea of what happened in Meredith’s final hours and it involved three killers and a number of unidentifiable fingerprints.

“When the trial started I thought everything would be easy, there was direct evidence like DNA proof,” he told the documentary.

“But there is not only DNA. Amanda was a girl that was very uninhibited. She would bring boys home and hearing Meredith’s friends,
if you could imagine a girl different from Amanda in every imaginable way it would have been Meredith.”


------------------------


Mignini went on to imagine the night Meredith was killed.

He sees Amanda in her house with her boyfriend and Rudy Guede.

The Italian court found Rudy was involved in Meredith’s murder, with his bloodstained fingerprints found at the murder scene.

He was convicted of sexual assault and murder in 2008.

In Mignini’s imagined version of events, Meredith sees Amanda with the boys and possibly “scolded her for her lack of morals”.

“Amanda must’ve felt humiliated. Irritated. ‘So you want to judge my morals so harshly, now I’m going to show you what will happen.’ She was a proud girl,” Mignini said in the documentary.

“And then there’s a crescendo of attacks. I am convinced Raffaele and Rudy were trying to indulge Amanda in every possible way that night.

“Pleasure, at any cost, this is the heart of most crimes.”

----------------------------

It appears in the documentary Mignini did not think much of Amanda and worked hard to get a guilty verdict put upon her.

But Amanda appealed her first conviction and there was an independent forensic investigation that found DNA evidence could not be relied on.

Independent forensic experts told the documentary DNA could be easily moved and the crime scene was not kept completely sterile.

The independent investigation found there was chaos at the crime scene, people coming and going and rarely changing their gloves.

The knife, which had DNA from both Amanda and Meredith, was also tested alongside 50 DNA samples of Meredith’s.

Because there was such a small amount of Meredith’s DNA on the knife blade, the experts believed contamination was likely.


-----------------------------


Mignini became the subject of a barrage of attacks from the media and people in the community.

“During the trial there was a woman who said I was the devil. I can say that I’ve made mistakes, even things that I have had to confess,” Mignini told the documentary.

“But we are all between good and evil. It’s in our human nature.

“Amanda and Raffaele, if they are innocent I hope they’re able to forget the suffering they’ve endured.

“If they’re guilty, if earthly justice didn’t get to them, I hope they own their guilt because I know that life ends with a final trial, a trial with no appeals, no second chances and no revisions.”

Despite the documentary showing other interviews with a journalist, Amanda and Raffaele, you don’t get any more clear answers about the circumstances around Meredith’s death. That we may never know.

But the documentary shows you there is a human behind the headlines, and that human is Amanda Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello Ergon, hello Fast Pete, maybe am still naive, but have 2 questions anyway: - isn't possible to send the final verdict of Cassazione plus Mignini's letter to TMK to Vanity and other Magazines and newspapers for publishing? Secondly I am afraid that Knox's felony doesn't appear in her criminal record in US, so also Canada couldn't know, because I suppose Italy didn't care of it and who else could put her verdict into her record? Would be here a way to do it that in her criminal record will be her felony an remark of her murder she got acquitted due to "insuff. evidence" finally? It is maybe difficult for many to see the truth if her criminal record is "white as snow"? I only know that criminal records also in US contain the outcomes of courts and felony and it is difficult to remove it for many years, probably felon never? I guess. Mignini could send the right papers to the appropriate authorities in Us or am I wrong?
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 29 of 34 [ 8337 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 34  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


29,149,335 Views