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 Nov 20, 2017 10:58 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:58 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 34 [ 8406 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 34  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:56 pm   Post subject: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -






This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievement of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30, 13 - JULY 31, 14

Michael (Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

At this point I am really started to wonder more about that rental poster that was made shortly after the murder. Sounds more and more like the two... handwriting or not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Selene Nelson's report here Dismantling the Amanda Knox ‘Victim’ Myth brought the following remark:

#BruceFischer: "Selene sounds angry in her article".

Ahem.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

You need to register on CNN to post a comment or provide feedback. I just did, in reply to Mr. Fischer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yes, 'that' is an excellent article

Well done CNN person, I didn't know they had anyone there with any sense.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Selene Nelson's excellent article on CNN ireport has had over 10,000 views already. Please continue to promote it by tweeting and retweeting it and liking it on Facebook. Thanks.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1157346
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

26,815 views already, The Machine. Justice For Meredith.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In fact, I can hardly recall an article put so clearly, this one wasn't afraid about upsetting neighbours.

Someone has been reading the right stuff.

At last.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Bruce Fischer reopened the Sfarzogate thread again.

Maybe it's a mistake, seeing that it's in the Administrator Forum.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

zorba wrote:
In fact, I can hardly recall an article put so clearly, this one wasn't afraid about upsetting neighbours.

Someone has been reading the right stuff.

At last.


I agree. Finally someone who knows the evidence presented in court in this case. I hope we see more like this in the future.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
Bruce Fischer reopened the Sfarzogate thread again.

Maybe it's a mistake, seeing that it's in the Administrator Forum.


Bruce Fischer has removed the privileges for the Administrator Forum for visitors again. Well done!

Look at the bright side of it Bruce, at least this time you didn't delete part of your forum. That must have been a scare.


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

He of Bari, what's his game?
Ploy is better than game, his devious plans, he has his.
Part of it, is image, the one he attempts to project is of the Mr Gentle, Mr Calm, Mr Thinky-Sensible, Mr How Could they Even Let the Idea Enter Their Heads That I Would Do Such a Preposterous Thing, Because Look, I had everything going for me and still do, see how I study.

Yet at the time of the murder which is important not how he looks now, he was dishevelled, drained, pale like someone seeing a ghost, thin. He'd been alone in Perugia, not a man alone, independent and able to totally assume authority over his own life, but there by courtesy of his father, and in this, there was a deal of course, that he would be supported to follow education, however when he got arrested for possession of hashish, I think Dad will have connected his smoking and possible use of other drugs with his failing grades. Though he wanted everything that came with his family deal, he nevertheless was basically a lazy slob, behaved like a child in the reluctance to do anything the parental authority told him to or wanted him to do, and this attitude he already had, he carried through into a response to any other bodies of authority. In his private time his attitude was like a simpleton's version of rebellion, for he wanted everything yet had that ungrateful attitude, that contempt, his entire show is to present himself as Mr Calm and Smooth, Mr Look at how sensibly I speak, yet he placed himself above everything else, and carried that on through even into the proceedings with his futile attempts at defence. They are just all mad. That body and all in it, they are just mad people, they are corrupt people, they are all mistaken, they are vindictive and break the law against me, I, the fantastic young man, the hounded for no reason, except that I knew her... just the one week!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And on the basis of the above, I really always wonder about his true temperament.

If I were to categorise her, then I'd say she had an explosive, emotional, uncontrollable temper.

How to describe him, seems harder, though he acts as Mr This & That, especially gentle and calm, he has always struck me as having something spiteful about him.

Where does spitefulness come from?

The wild, slashing, half lunatic if not complete lunatic, overcome by all of the inner turmoil he or she never was able to see, define, pinpoint or locate, acts with no forethought about consequences, the only object in the exercise is the battle and winning it.

The quiet, calm-speaking Mr Smooth and Normal, doesn't kill through rage but through contemplation and calculation.
Still, the two contributions (from him and her) combined make for a murder awful in nature, motives and energy behind why.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

zorba wrote:
All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.


Which is another reason why Amanda Knox should be so scared. According to what Andrea Vogt wrote in one of her updates, Knox's appeal does not offer any new arguments. I also note how Knox this time has chosen not to publish her appeal just as she did not publish anything related to her appeal to the Eruopean Court of Human Rights.

She knows her attempt to overthrow the guilty verdict is weak and she does not want people to find out too soon that her situation is past all hope. This way she can feign surprise once her conviction becomes final. Embrace yourself for a few more perfectly timed interviews asking for sympathy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.


Which is another reason why Amanda Knox should be so scared. According to what Andrea Vogt wrote in one of her updates, Knox's appeal does not offer any new arguments. I also note how Knox this time has chosen not to publish her appeal just as she did not publish anything related to her appeal to the Eruopean Court of Human Rights.

She knows her attempt to overthrow the guilty verdict is weak and she does not want people to find out too soon that her situation is past all hope. This way she can feign surprise once her conviction becomes final. Embrace yourself for a few more perfectly timed interviews asking for sympathy.



She has anxiety but she isn't scared of the High Court ruling, it's a foregone conclusion. Although yes, she will certainly publicly feign shock when it happens. As I said in a previous post, Knox and her camp's high priests have already long written off the Italian legal system as a lost cause. They know they don't have a snowball in Hell's chance of reversing the guilty verdict or annulling Nencini. For them, the battle is to be fought back home in trying to get the US public to have an outcry when the extradition order is put out (or is imminent). This is why the Knox Camp go absolutely ballistic when anything is put in front of the American public that damages her whiter then snow image. That's where the battle is now, her public image.


ETA: They probably call it a "battle for hearts and minds", or something dumb like that.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That's why they're going nuts about Selene Wilson's IReport. Just with the CNN Logo it's getting through to an American audience.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
That's why they're going nuts about Selene Wilson's IReport. Just with the CNN Logo it's getting through to an American audience.



Exactomundo!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

There are, of course, some of the faithful, some of the lower minions, that still think they can beat the rap in the courts or via the ECHR, but they know jack about legal systems and least of all about the Italian and European ones. Those at the top know fully well that the legal battle is essentially over. Their only hope now, as they see it, is for the US public and with them powerful Americans, to put pressure on the State Department when extradition time approaches/comes. It's the only play they have left.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 3:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That's their ultimate position, she-will-never-be-extradited. They shouldn't put money on it, though ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It's all talk. That's all they've got.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I remember Kerry being questioned on extradition and he didn't say much apart from it was an ongoing legal process & when the time came to comment on it "I will do my duty". He didn't seem very interested overall.
That doesn't sound too well for Knox.
@ 5:08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrWtgoy1do
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Aside from Maria Cantwell, none of the US politicians have seemed very interested.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Bedelia posted a list of contributors to Senator Cantwell's campaign on ORG. Dave Marriott's one, but I'm sure she knows Judge Heavey and Tom Wright as well. However, I doubt she'll be too concerned with Knox as she goes into the US election cycle. And State? No, I don't think so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
...but I'm sure she knows Judge Heavey and Tom Wright as well...


She's a close personal friend of Heavey's, they go mountain climbing together.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

(( OT OT ))

Strange, but true. Apparently, Ibuprofen can also ease emotional pain as well as physical pain. But, only for women...for men, it makes emotional pain worse:

Ibuprofen relieves women's hurt feelings, not men's

07:30, Psychology & Psychiatry



(Medical Xpress)—For years, researchers have known that physical pain relievers such as ibuprofen can also help ease emotional pain, but new research suggests that ibuprofen has contrasting effects on men and women: Men who take the drug report harsher feelings of rejection, and women report feeling better.

The research by Professor Anita L. Vangelisti at The University of Texas at Austin's Moody College of Communication, published in the June 2014 edition of Personal Relationships, could reveal ways men and women can help each other deal with hurt feelings.

People have long been conditioned to believe that hurt feelings and physical injury are separate phenomena. Recent research finds that both kinds of pain activate similar regions of the brain—and that differences in sex reveal opposing ways to mitigate the sting of social pain through over-the-counter pain relievers.

Vangelisti dug deeper into the proven ability of physical pain relievers to alleviate emotional pain in both sexes. According to her study, "Reducing social pain: Sex differences in the impact of physical pain relievers," women who took ibuprofen had less intense hurt feelings when they were excluded from a game and when they relived a painful experience than their male counterparts, who felt more hurt in both situations.

"Hurt feelings are a part of any close relationship, so learning how to think and talk about the social pain we experience in our relationships is important," said Vangelisti. "Understanding differences in the way women and men deal with their hurt feelings could go a long way toward helping couples cope with these feelings in their romantic and marital relationships."

The study was co-authored by James W. Pennebaker, chair and professor in the Department of Psychology at The University of Texas at Austin; Nicholas Brody, assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Puget Sound; and Trey D. Guinn, assistant professor in the Department of Communication Arts at the University of the Incarnate Word.

The research was based on responses from 138 university students—62 men and 76 women. After completing initial screenings and questionnaires, half of the participants took 400 mg of ibuprofen and the other half received a placebo.


For complete article: PHYSORG

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.


Which is another reason why Amanda Knox should be so scared. According to what Andrea Vogt wrote in one of her updates, Knox's appeal does not offer any new arguments. I also note how Knox this time has chosen not to publish her appeal just as she did not publish anything related to her appeal to the Eruopean Court of Human Rights.

She knows her attempt to overthrow the guilty verdict is weak and she does not want people to find out too soon that her situation is past all hope. This way she can feign surprise once her conviction becomes final. Embrace yourself for a few more perfectly timed interviews asking for sympathy.



Yes, it represents making a lot of shrill noise.
I suspect selfishness will destroy the more selfishly-inclined, though I could hardly imagine Knox on being hauled in, remaining as self-assured as she pretended to be in Italy in court. Sollecito, surely if something really telling and changing doesn't happen before prison, as regards perhaps to his stability of mind and freaking out as the days grow shorter, I'm sure in prison he is going to go truly bananas, in his making up of further stories. Yet I cannot see him getting as far as court ruling, I'm sure he is going to run.

_________________
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: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.


Which is another reason why Amanda Knox should be so scared. According to what Andrea Vogt wrote in one of her updates, Knox's appeal does not offer any new arguments. I also note how Knox this time has chosen not to publish her appeal just as she did not publish anything related to her appeal to the Eruopean Court of Human Rights.

She knows her attempt to overthrow the guilty verdict is weak and she does not want people to find out too soon that her situation is past all hope. This way she can feign surprise once her conviction becomes final. Embrace yourself for a few more perfectly timed interviews asking for sympathy.



Yes, it represents making a lot of shrill noise.
I suspect selfishness will destroy the more selfishly-inclined, though I could hardly imagine Knox on being hauled in, remaining as self-assured as she pretended to be in Italy in court. Sollecito, surely if something really telling and changing doesn't happen before prison, as regards perhaps to his stability of mind and freaking out as the days grow shorter, I'm sure in prison he is going to go truly bananas, in his making up of further stories. Yet I cannot see him getting as far as court ruling, I'm sure he is going to run.


Didn't they take his passport though? Unless the urologist to the dons can get him a dodgy one. :mrgreen:

It's interesting you mention his stability of mind though as Ergon mentioned to me on Twitter that he seemed medicated and this could well be the case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:39 pm   Post subject: WHY AMANDA KNOX CHANGED HER MAJOR AT UW   

Interesting comments from "Michelle" at Cali Deeva's blog Amanda Knox And The Seattle News Blackout

Michelle > CaliDeeva • 2 days ago

Quote:
Many in the Seattle area think that Amanda Knox is not as innocent as she pretends. Her family uses their money and contributions to pay for high priced attorneys and publicity agents to get her on the Today Show and the local TV channels. Fact is that a poll was taken at the University of Washington and most of her fellow students in the language department voted to not have her come back to the foreign language departments. That is why she changed majors to fictional story writing. This major alone would seem to give the message that Foxy Knoxy is laughing at the Italian court system. Amanda Knox's relatives are all begging for money for her--yet when she came back to the Seattle area, she did not live with her own relatives to save money to pay off her debts. She is regularly seen walking with a Starbucks cup--which isn't something that the poor can afford. She goes to the most expensive hair salon in the Seattle area to get her hair styled. For someone who is begging for donations she lives pretty well and is not watching her pennies. Not sure if she is a murderer--but she certainly had a drug problem and believes that having sex is about the same as shaking a guy's hand in greeting.


Michelle > CaliDeeva • 13 hours ago

Quote:
I have a close relative who was a foreign language major at the UW at the same time as Amanda. At the time that Amanda was getting credit for her foreign language studies in Italy, this relative was in another country studying Spanish. Her host family and other students attending classes with her in Spain painted all the visiting students from the UW with the same broad brush: spoiled little rich kids who were more interested in partying and doing drugs than learning about the customs and people of the country where they were taking classes. If Amanda's language skills in Italian were as poor as what her family and lawyers have tried to convince the Italians, it is doubtful that Amanda would be getting credit from the University for the courses she was taking. Maybe my thinking is naive, but if Amanda's Italian was so weak, it makes one wonder how she was able to hook up with so many different boys; get around the town; and even buy drugs. I have no knowledge whether she was taking drugs while living in Seattle--or if she was so sexually active. It is well known that she has lived with several different guys ever since first arriving back on Seattle soil. The poll about accepting Amanda back into the foreign language program only included the foreign language students (I believe) and most of them vetoed the idea because she had soiled the reputations of the University of Washington foreign language students , its entire program and had disgraced the school. It was harder for students in the program to find the respect that they had previously received from fellow students abroad and host families.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi, corpusvile, sure the dodgy passport :) though they appear more resigned to his going to prison, angling to make sure AK doesn't escape same.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, corpusvile, sure the dodgy passport :) though they appear more resigned to his going to prison, angling to make sure AK doesn't escape same.


Hey Ergon. ;)

I think he may just possibly make some revealing comments at his final appeal. They seem more resigned as you said, but maybe when the true reality hits home he may start singing and showing remorse, anything to try get a reduction or a better shot at parole although I'm not sure if this would work at this point. I'm kinda surprised he didn't stay in the Dominican Republic actually as it has no extradition treaty with Italy iirc.

Re your reference to Justice4ever I also read those comments and found the foreign exchange student poll very interesting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Countries with no extradition treaty will still extradite, especially for crimes consisting of rape and murder. I think Sollecito found out via certain channels on the island that should his conviction be upheld and Italy applied for an international arrest warrant, there was no way they'd let him stay. He would still be there otherwise.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Countries wit no extradition treaty will still extradite, especially for crimes consisting of rape and murder. I think Sollecito found out via certain channels on the island that should his conviction be upheld and Italy applied for an international arrest warrent, there was no way they'd let him stay. He would still be there otherwise.


Cheers Michael, I was wondering on that also actually as I couldn't think of any other reason for him to come back.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.


Which is another reason why Amanda Knox should be so scared. According to what Andrea Vogt wrote in one of her updates, Knox's appeal does not offer any new arguments. I also note how Knox this time has chosen not to publish her appeal just as she did not publish anything related to her appeal to the Eruopean Court of Human Rights.

She knows her attempt to overthrow the guilty verdict is weak and she does not want people to find out too soon that her situation is past all hope. This way she can feign surprise once her conviction becomes final. Embrace yourself for a few more perfectly timed interviews asking for sympathy.



Yes, it represents making a lot of shrill noise.
I suspect selfishness will destroy the more selfishly-inclined, though I could hardly imagine Knox on being hauled in, remaining as self-assured as she pretended to be in Italy in court. Sollecito, surely if something really telling and changing doesn't happen before prison, as regards perhaps to his stability of mind and freaking out as the days grow shorter, I'm sure in prison he is going to go truly bananas, in his making up of further stories. Yet I cannot see him getting as far as court ruling, I'm sure he is going to run.


Didn't they take his passport though? Unless the urologist to the dons can get him a dodgy one. :mrgreen:

It's interesting you mention his stability of mind though as Ergon mentioned to me on Twitter that he seemed medicated and this could well be the case.



Those things can be acquired, but being that he is not simply skipping a couple of parking fines, as a fugitive on the run for murder, my guess is he would get to wherever he is going to get to-ville and hope not to be signalled being there, wherever there would be I just cannot see him doing what he said, turning himself in.

As soon as he gets locked up and Knox doesn't he is going to turn very bitter... I think.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Countries with no extradition treaty will still extradite, especially for crimes consisting of rape and murder. I think Sollecito found out via certain channels on the island that should his conviction be upheld and Italy applied for an international arrest warrant, there was no way they'd let him stay. He would still be there otherwise.


Yes, I was surprised he returned, think you are probably right, even though for Italians the DR is easy, for such a well-known murder what would it be saying letting him stay.
Though I say I think he'll run, I'm having a hard job thinking where to.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 3:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.


Which is another reason why Amanda Knox should be so scared. According to what Andrea Vogt wrote in one of her updates, Knox's appeal does not offer any new arguments. I also note how Knox this time has chosen not to publish her appeal just as she did not publish anything related to her appeal to the Eruopean Court of Human Rights.

She knows her attempt to overthrow the guilty verdict is weak and she does not want people to find out too soon that her situation is past all hope. This way she can feign surprise once her conviction becomes final. Embrace yourself for a few more perfectly timed interviews asking for sympathy.



Yes, it represents making a lot of shrill noise.
I suspect selfishness will destroy the more selfishly-inclined, though I could hardly imagine Knox on being hauled in, remaining as self-assured as she pretended to be in Italy in court. Sollecito, surely if something really telling and changing doesn't happen before prison, as regards perhaps to his stability of mind and freaking out as the days grow shorter, I'm sure in prison he is going to go truly bananas, in his making up of further stories. Yet I cannot see him getting as far as court ruling, I'm sure he is going to run.


If Knox had strong arguments for an appeal she would have published her appeal document just like she did last time. Their last appeals were basically the FOA roadmap of talking points.

Her silence regarding her appeal to the ECHR and her last appeal to the Supreme Court is very suspicious.

Were Amanda Knox to be extradited, it would be the ultimate humiliation for her and her family.

Her parents have told the public over the years that their daughter was convicted because she was a sexually active American and that the verdict of the backward Italian courts was ridiculous and would not have happened in the U.S.

I wonder what they will say if she is sent back?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 4:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

zorba wrote:
Michael wrote:
Countries with no extradition treaty will still extradite, especially for crimes consisting of rape and murder. I think Sollecito found out via certain channels on the island that should his conviction be upheld and Italy applied for an international arrest warrant, there was no way they'd let him stay. He would still be there otherwise.

Yes, I was surprised he returned, think you are probably right, even though for Italians the DR is easy, for such a well-known murder what would it be saying letting him stay.
Though I say I think he'll run, I'm having a hard job thinking where to.

A cave? :mrgreen: I don't think he will run. At least not successfully. You can't stay hidden with the family ties he has, and with his girlfriend now. His little escape to Austria was with his girlfriend on his side. That will never work. I think he will go to jail and maintain his innocence from inside for the 'glory' of his family. It is over, and the clock keeps ticking waiting for the SC to come back from summer break ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And then of course, he gave the world all those nice TV interviews, just to remind everyone what he looks and sounds like :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon

Some while ago you said you were going to post your observations on Gill's book. I've been waiting for that ever since.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
zorba wrote:
Michael wrote:
Countries with no extradition treaty will still extradite, especially for crimes consisting of rape and murder. I think Sollecito found out via certain channels on the island that should his conviction be upheld and Italy applied for an international arrest warrant, there was no way they'd let him stay. He would still be there otherwise.

Yes, I was surprised he returned, think you are probably right, even though for Italians the DR is easy, for such a well-known murder what would it be saying letting him stay.
Though I say I think he'll run, I'm having a hard job thinking where to.

A cave? :mrgreen: I don't think he will run. At least not successfully. You can't stay hidden with the family ties he has, and with his girlfriend now. His little escape to Austria was with his girlfriend on his side. That will never work. I think he will go to jail and maintain his innocence from inside for the 'glory' of his family. It is over, and the clock keeps ticking waiting for the SC to come back from summer break ;)


Yeah, what would his thinking then be? That he might somehow, still manage to get out early through Dad's handy practices f perhaps paying people off.

Problem is, after the supreme court has ruled I don't know but I think the board is then even more strict, as in, there's no way to be able to pay anyone off, yet again though, it seems in this world people can be paid off when you imagined it'd be impossible, we're talking top judges here. Papa will need a heavy duty pump to get that water running uphill.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Perhaps his hiding place of choice will be in his good old country, where he can still get a great sandwich underground, so perhaps in a mafia type bunker.

It all sounds unrealistic, realistic is, that he has little time left.

How does one fare while pretending 20 odd years long that your are innocent of something you are in fact guilty of, surely that game alone is enough to send most people nuts?

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
All I know is, the supreme court must be doing a thorough job cos it takes long enough.


Which is another reason why Amanda Knox should be so scared. According to what Andrea Vogt wrote in one of her updates, Knox's appeal does not offer any new arguments. I also note how Knox this time has chosen not to publish her appeal just as she did not publish anything related to her appeal to the Eruopean Court of Human Rights.

She knows her attempt to overthrow the guilty verdict is weak and she does not want people to find out too soon that her situation is past all hope. This way she can feign surprise once her conviction becomes final. Embrace yourself for a few more perfectly timed interviews asking for sympathy.



Yes, it represents making a lot of shrill noise.
I suspect selfishness will destroy the more selfishly-inclined, though I could hardly imagine Knox on being hauled in, remaining as self-assured as she pretended to be in Italy in court. Sollecito, surely if something really telling and changing doesn't happen before prison, as regards perhaps to his stability of mind and freaking out as the days grow shorter, I'm sure in prison he is going to go truly bananas, in his making up of further stories. Yet I cannot see him getting as far as court ruling, I'm sure he is going to run.


If Knox had strong arguments for an appeal she would have published her appeal document just like she did last time. Their last appeals were basically the FOA roadmap of talking points.

Her silence regarding her appeal to the ECHR and her last appeal to the Supreme Court is very suspicious.

Were Amanda Knox to be extradited, it would be the ultimate humiliation for her and her family.

Her parents have told the public over the years that their daughter was convicted because she was a sexually active American and that the verdict of the backward Italian courts was ridiculous and would not have happened in the U.S.

I wonder what they will say if she is sent back?



It's as though she imagines through ignoring reality, the disassociation might separate her, like ignore it and it'll go away, treat it as though it has no validity, as though it doesn't exist, in fact, do exactly what your old chum said of you by having absolutely no connection to reality.

Reality, real terms.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
And then of course, he gave the world all those nice TV interviews, just to remind everyone what he looks and sounds like :)



The best moment was seeing him get shocked by someone who got through the net and gave him a piece of his mind at the book signing.

The guy who shouted at him at a book signing was nutty in his own right but the look on his face, when he looked up, said everything to me, it's insane isn't it how because someone is signing a book they are protected, yet it's like nobody as an individual realises what they are doing, there ya are protecting a murderer, book writer, no.

That ghost writer seems to be just another word whore, one who will write anything as long as the money rolls in and he can remain in America enjoying a certain lifestyle, the guy even announced he'd won the book deal to his pals on Twitter, and the pleased bit is all about the bloody great big check a person gets.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And the worst bit is he is British, I am not patriotic but isn't it bad enough without having British idiots profit from Meredith's murder.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And bloody in combination with cheque is precisely the right word in this case.

All of the money is covered with blood.

I recently carried out an assignment in relation to the Ukrainian disaster, I waived the fee, because I do not want to be any part of that, and by taking any money, felt to me like the work would be thanks to those that blew up the plane, I don't like working a lot for free but there comes a time...

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:54 am   Post subject: MORE STEVEN GILL   

Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

Ergon wrote:
Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)


I'm not MisterPink though of course he may have taken the opportunity to remind you as well.

It would be interesting to see that e-mail published. There certainly seems to be a contradiction on Professor Gill's part. But that may be a step too far. Anyway that's a matter for you.

I get the impression that the Groupies are trying to make too much of Gill's book purely on the basis of a "miscarriage of justice" label and without giving too much consideration to anything else he may have said. I suppose the book is published in the UK. I will keep a look out for it but your detailed critique would be most welcome. At least you and MisterPink appear to have read it.

The bit you quote is a bit of an embarrasment for the Groupies isn't it? Here is a DNA expert making it clear that there is more than the DNA to consider even when considering the DNA. The question is whether or not he gets into the logic of that observation with regard to the specifics of this case.

Over on IIP there has been much ridicule and laughter at the use of the word "osmosis" by the Supreme Court. Perhaps it would have been better if the word had not been used. But really all it means is taking into account probability having regard to all the elements of the case. That sort of evidential multi-tasking is quite beyond their mental ability.
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 03, 2014 1:05 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

jape wrote:
--- snip ---

I'm not MisterPink though of course he may have taken the opportunity to remind you as well.

--- snap ---


Mr. Pink is an active member of perugiamurderfile.org and he made a comment there about Prof. Gill which must have reminded Ergon.

We all dedicate the time we can.


jape wrote:
--- snip ---

It would be interesting to see that e-mail published.

--- snap ---


The screenshot of the Prof. Gill's email can be found here


jape wrote:
--- snip ---

I will keep a look out for it but your detailed critique would be most welcome. At least you and MisterPink appear to have read it.

--- snap ---


I second that. I am looking forward reading Ergon's thoughts on Prof. Gill's book too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I've sent a number of tweets to King5 reporters. Please retweet. Thanks. It only a few moments. Everyone can make a difference.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 7:20 pm   Post subject: MORE PETER GILL   

Hi, jape,

Yeah, I read the book and promised a full critique a while back.

The book is published by Elsevier and also available as a PDF through their website. Amazon has it too.

Here's some of my bits and pieces published here and on Selene Wilson's IReport Reply to Peter Gill

manfromatlan

56 minutes ago

"Jay2468, your 'rebuttal' is so poorly written it only has 32 views from yesterday. I for one will deprive it of oxygen by not commenting there. Quoting Mark Waterbury, Steve Moore, and Jim Clemente, who are NOT experts in the subjects they comment on, and poorly informed as well?

As for professor Peter Gill, while he is an expert on LCN DNA, I've read his book, and it is a manifesto for standardizing procedures and building national DNA databases (something privacy advocates might well take heed of) He clearly does not know very much about the case. Also, hypothesizing contamination does not prove it, which is why he and Greg Hampikian did not bother to appear in court to suffer the sort of examination they could not have got away with. Instead, he writes a book on the case based only on erroneous reports handed to him by defense experts at a conference in Rome in 2012.

His entire chapter on the Meredith Kercher murder is riddled with inaccuracies and faulty judgment, therefore he cannot legitimately be entitled to be listed as a source."

manfromatlan

7 hours ago

"Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)"

manfromatlan

9 hours ago

"Professor Gill has already distanced from the case by sending an e-mail that he was not propounding on the guilt or innocence of any individuals, which is very wise. Experts do not pronounce sentence, judges too.

He relied too much on one source, the discredited Conti-Vecchiotti report, hand waved away Amanda Knox's blood "no evidence she was injured" (duh her blood WAS found there-probably from a bleeding nose when Meredith hit her)

He can also try to peddle a possible contamination scenario, but no route for contamination, either for the knife, or bra clasp has been proved. I won't accept anything but direct or secondary transfer by the way, keep your 'household dust' theories to yourself.

Professor Gill otherwise makes reasonable arguments for standardized protocols of evidence collection, but that cannot be retroactively applied to this or any case. Possibility of contamination is not enough, it MUST be proven. Professor Gill might want not to endanger his standing in any future case by tying his fortunes too closely to Amanda Knox.

He might also proof read his own work. He misspells Meredith Kercher's name as "Meridith".

manfromatlan

August 1, 2014

"Montpelier suggests the knife was contaminated by DNA from 'household dust'. Even though research has come out suggesting that stray DNA can be isolated from 'dust' which really means human skin cells, there has been no instance where a profile for an identifiable person at a crime scene has ever been found that way.

If DNA was so abundant in 'dust', how come none of Raffaele Sollecito's was found in his own car?

The fact is that Stefano Gubbiotti testified to a proper chain of evidence, and the knife was transferred from a sealed envelope, while wearing clean gloves, into a cardboard box that never had been in the vicinity of the cottage or Sollecito's flat.

It might be too much to Montpelier to ponticate so readily on subjects he has no knowledge of, but for his education, I'll say this: DNA does NOT transfer so easily, except maybe through lab contamination, and, as the Supreme Court has already ruled, a path of contamination MUST be proved."

More to follow.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 7:54 pm   Post subject: GILL MISLEADING DNA EVIDENCE   

@jape, what you said, "Here is a DNA expert making it clear that there is more than the DNA to consider even when considering the DNA. The question is whether or not he gets into the logic of that observation with regard to the specifics of this case."

I've read the book three times, and yes, he misses that point entirely. As the judge in the Ormagh case makes it clear, his opinions are sometimes so vague they can be read either way. But that his thesis can actually contradict his conclusions about the Meredith Kercher case? I was surprised to see him so unaware of that possibility.

But, as I first pointed out here when Bruce Fischer informed us about Professor Kassin being 'retained' to examine the Amanda Knox 'false confession', here was another expert whose own research contradicted his findings. I also suggested that wannabe defense experts might find that hanging their reputations on what Amanda Knox (or Raffaele Sollecito's) defense fed them might turn out to be poisoned fruit.

I abhor science professionals who are so willing to prostitute themselves by not even doing basic fact checking, but it seems this case has drawn them like flies to whatever.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Katie Crouch's disgusting book of fiction based on Meredith Kercher's murder is sadly available in the UK through Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Abroad-Katie-Cr ... uch+Abroad
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Katie Crouch's disgusting book of fiction based on Meredith Kercher's murder is sadly available in the UK through Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Abroad-Katie-Cr ... uch+Abroad

That's really surprising actually. And utterly repugnant. :(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nothing in this case surprises me anymore. Nothing.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yeah. Me neither in retrospect I guess. I didn't think it would be available from Amazon UK. Maybe I sound naive but I'm just taken aback at the amount of people coming outa the woodwork who have no qualms profiting off of a young girl's murder and lying through their teeth in the process. I'm not religious but I find such behaviour deeply immoral. People depress me sometimes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Lots of 4 and 5 star reviews from the usual suspects too (plus quite a few who got free 'promotional' copies)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks Ergon. Interesting. Maybe more to come?

You said you would only accept direct or secondary transfer. What about tertiary transfer?

Direct or primary transfer would be if one touched or sneezed on an object. Secondary transfer could be if the DNA containing surface of that object was then pressed against another object. Tertiary transfer could be when someone makes contact with the DNA on the first object and then makes contact with the second object with the same part of his body. Three steps here but one can imagine a series of three, four or more but with the inherent limitation that the quantity of DNA being transferred is being reduced with each step.

The defence are always going to argue secondary or tertiary transfer. Arguing for any more steps is going to look a bit complicated and unlikely. I don't have a problem with either secondary or tertiary transfer if a credible route can be established from the evidence available and if such a route lies within a credible time-frame from the primary deposit. The last point is important because as you say DNA transfer isn't just a matter of course, even on primary transfer. The substance carrying the DNA has to be in transferable condition. Stefanoni said that secondary or tertiary transfer doesn't happen unless that substance retains some element of a watery condition and it would need some pressure if not friction to pick it up and re-locate it so that it adhered elsewhere. Such as on a metal hook. At the very least it should not be dry when that would seem to me to be impossible. I am not aware that she was contradicted at the Massei trial and C&V, we can be sure, know even less about this then the defence experts.

There has been practical research into DNA transfer and whilst this does establish that secondary and tertiary transfer does happen most of it seems to show that the frequency is a lot less than some people tend to imagine and none of the research seems to examine frequency against optimal and least efficient (ie opposite of optimal) time-frames. I suspect that all the experiments that have been carried out in the lab have moved seemlessly through the transfer steps in order to conclude the experiment within the shortest time frame. Think Hampikian for a start.

What, if anything, had Gill to contribute to my above observations? If nothing then what would be the value of his list of possible contamination scenarios?

The bra clasp was recovered about 42 days after the cottage was closed. That alone probably makes it well nigh impossible for transfer to have occurred at that time though possibly atmospheric conditions may have had a bearing on transferability.

Transferability was probably optimal during the first sweep by forensics but the bra clasp wasn't exposed until after midnight, that is some 12 hours after Sollecito might hypothetically have deposited his DNA on the bedroom door - but 12 hours should be more than sufficient drying out time and no-one has shown or demonstrated that anyone actually picked the clasp up then. I think that the general idea at that time was just to photograph objects, leave them in situ and place markers by them.

The final point of course is that - even if nothing I have said can be held to be certain- anyone claiming contamination has to establish, on the basis of what is known, that they are more likely to be right than I am. Does Gill do this?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:43 am   Post subject: DNA, GILL   

Indeed, jape, more to come. Gill writes a handbook explaining all the many ways in which contamination CAN occur, but not ONCE proves where or how it did. For example, "where items are packaged together" which has nothing to do with the case but he throws it into the chapter on Meredith Kercher to imply this is what happened. He also throws in how boxes can retain DNA but then suggests that is how Meredith's DNA got on the knife, from the calendar box. Doesn't seem to have read Stefano Gubbiotti's testimony about the transport of the knife, of course. Says "the knife was transported in a shoe box without knowing what it previously contained", LOL.

But it is his meandering approach that is hard slogging.

His take on environmental DNA, that it is found all over, in dust. Then he admits that is a less likely means of contamination.

He quotes Professor Balding approvingly. Agrees that it very likely is Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, Meredith's on the knife. Then he brings in the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to say the state hasn't met it, quoting Hellmann approvingly.

His primary references are the Conti-Vecchiotti Report and the Hellmann Motivations Report, based on a presentation given in Rome 2012 by Vince Pascali
"The hidden side of DNA profiles" so he has not read the Supreme Court decision of 2013 or the Nencini Report of 2014.

So, to answer your question, then no, there is no value to his list of scenarios, because he does not anywhere establish a contamination route.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
For example, "where items are packaged together" which has nothing to do with the case but he throws it into the chapter on Meredith Kercher to imply this is what happened.


Now, right there, he actually gives a very good example of what exactly the Italian courts mean when they say that a route of contamination must be proven, rather then simply hypothesised or said to be "possible". If, say, the bra clasp had been incorrectly bagged with another item, then this would have served as a clear route of contamination and the defence could have gotten the clasp ruled as being unreliable. Only, of course, nothing like that ever happened, leaving the defence to try and argue the mere fact that the clasp wasn't collected immediately and had been moved 3' across the floor is enough. It isn't.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I just want to say, Knox knows her appeal to the High Court is a fool's hope. She STILL has not posted up a translation of her appeal to the High Court on her site. If she had any real confidence in it at all, it would be there now...would have been there long ago. She knows fully well, it's weak.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
I just want to say, Knox knows her appeal to the High Court is a fool's hope. She STILL has not posted up a translation of her appeal to the High Court on her site. If she had any real confidence in it at all, it would be there now...would have been there long ago. She knows fully well, it's weak.


I share your opinion Michael.

She does not want anyone to see it to prevent a major panic amongst her supporters. Knox does not want anyone to jump ship at the last last minute.

There are no new updates on her blog since she delighted us with colourful pictures from the "Summer Solstice" festival she visited with Madison Paxton.

Not a word since the Sollecito's separation strategy.

She seems to have abandoned her Twitter account as well. Not a peep in over a month.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

She's still posting of course, just not on her site and is using sock accounts to do it, and speaks through the mouths of others. She no longer wants to own anything she posts. That tells you a lot about her confidence in her position.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:32 am   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

Ergon wrote:
Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)



During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill,s agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research befor publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:41 am   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

SwanseaJack wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)



During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill,s agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research befor publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack



Strange, as he seemed quite happy to express an opinion of innocence in his book. All of a sudden, he's down on discussing it.

Welcome to PMF, Jack!!! :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:47 am   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

SwanseaJack wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)



During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill,s agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research befor publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack


Hi Jack,

Good to see you.

His knowledge of the case is based on the Conti & Vecchiotti report that has been discredited.

In my opinion Prof. Gill has been approached by Amanda Knox supporters like so many others before him. They are always searching for new experts lazy enough to rely on them for information.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

You know, you guys should check out an old (ish) British satirical TV series, perhaps the most cutting and controversial satire ever made. It rips shreds out of the media, but also celebrities overly eager to jump on bandwagons. Brass Eye. One episode has various Brit celebrities recruited to speak out against a supposed new terrible drug hitting the street called "cake". Of course, all of them were happy to oblige, despite the fact that one look at this "drug" would have informed anyone with the least bit of sense that this was clearly a nonsense. It examples how celebrities will fall over themselves to support any old cause, without the least bit of fact checking into what they're actually supporting, to get into the limelight. It's one of my favourite TV series of all time and one to watch before you die. Probably the only one that was so biting in its satire, that it cause a public outcry and uproar in the House of Commons itself, with politicians (most of whom hhad never actually eeven watched it) lining up to condemn it. Enjoy:

BRASS EYE

EPISODE 2 DRUGS




PART 2




PART 3




Worth a read for some background: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/05/news.film

Reviews: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brass-Eye-Serie ... ewpoints=1

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:49 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

SwanseaJack wrote:


During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill's agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research before publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack


Did he really write that? Where is his evidence for the assertion? That's truly shocking. No respect for this man, none at all.

Is it Gill who also thinks that the knife was placed in a shoe box that had been mailed to Meredith Kercher or was that somebody else?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I was aware that Gill had given thanks to Carla Vecchiotti and based his writing on her report, this once again is further evidence that Gill "jumped in with both feet" before conducting any research in to the case at all. A simple google search would have provided prof Gill with enough information on the farcical Hellmann appeal and Vecchiotti's role there in.
To answer "any thing is possible" under testimony in such a seriously traumatic case is frankly laughable.
My own opinion is that neither Conti nor Vecchiotti acted as independant experts during the appeal but more so appeared to have an agenda to discredit Stefanoni and the entire forensic investigation.
For a man of Gill's standing to base his opinion and write about the evidence with his main source of research being a report that has been totally discredited and the court ruling it heavily contributed to been annulled shows a great deal of ignorance on his part.
Sadly it would appear not even the "God father of lcn dna testing" is above profiting from Meredith's murder.
Another ignorant expert with blood money in his pockets.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

jape wrote:
SwanseaJack wrote:


During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill's agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research before publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack


Did he really write that? Where is his evidence for the assertion? That's truly shocking. No respect for this man, none at all.

Is it Gill who also thinks that the knife was placed in a shoe box that had been mailed to Meredith Kercher or was that somebody else?


I believe Gill stated that rep 36 was transported in a shoe box from Sollecito's appartment, as for the bra clasp there is no evidence of it being "kicked about" and this a very presumptious statement indeed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi, Jack, and welcome to PMF NET! Gill does indeed write the knife was "transported in a shoe box" (Chapter 5) I got his book soon as it was published but was writing about his claims before that.

He, like Kassin, distanced himself and refused to defend their opinions once caught out. Gill lied in his e-mail to you, by the way, since he calls the case a "miscarriage of justice" (p164)

Don't get me started about 'scientists' and 'experts' (especially the FBI kind :) who whore themselves for media attention and future careers. And the sciency groupies who lick their bottoms. The lazy fecking media. And especially, those who lie about this case.

Don't forget I'll be collecting my skull attack one day, friend.

Naseer

ETA: Correction, he writes "repackaged in a shoe box" (p. 154)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

Nell wrote:
SwanseaJack wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)



During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill,s agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research befor publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack


Hi Jack,

Good to see you.

His knowledge of the case is based on the Conti & Vecchiotti report that has been discredited.

In my opinion Prof. Gill has been approached by Amanda Knox supporters like so many others before him. They are always searching for new experts lazy enough to rely on them for information.


Wouldn't Gill as a DNA expert not see the flaws in the CV report though? I know little if anything regarding dna but even I could see the fallacy of CV attacking LCN DNA as a science itself rather than the evidence and found them citing obscure US midwest manuals (where apart from NY, LCN isn't accepted in the US anyway) to bolster their claims as pretty suspicious & I'm a layperson. I have to wonder if the likes of experts such as Gill are simply looking either for future juicy defence witness gigs or an opportunistic buck so attach themselves to such cases tbh although maybe I'm being too cynical. I do find it odd though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
You know, you guys should check out an old (ish) British satirical TV series, perhaps the most cutting and controversial satire ever made. It rips shreds out of the media, but also celebrities overly eager to jump on bandwagons. Brass Eye. One episode has various Brit celebrities recruited to speak out against a supposed new terrible drug hitting the street called "cake". Of course, all of them were happy to oblige, despite the fact that one look at this "drug" would have informed anyone with the least bit of sense that this was clearly a nonsense. It examples how celebrities will fall over themselves to support any old cause, without the least bit of fact checking into what they're actually supporting, to get into the limelight. It's one of my favourite TV series of all time and one to watch before you die. Probably the only one that was so biting in its satire, that it cause a public outcry and uproar in the House of Commons itself, with politicians (most of whom hhad never actually eeven watched it) lining up to condemn it. Enjoy:

BRASS EYE

EPISODE 2 DRUGS

(VIDEOS)


Worth a read for some background: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/05/news.film

Reviews: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brass-Eye-Serie ... ewpoints=1


Brass Eye was brilliant. You should see the episode "paedogeddon" which satirizes paedophile hysteria, it's rib crackingly funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU (NSFW)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Corpusvile wrote:
Brass Eye was brilliant. You should see the episode "paedogeddon" which satirizes paedophile hysteria, it's rib crackingly funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU (NSFW)



Oh yes, I've seen them all and that episode is probably the most scathing of the sensationalised media, but maybe something held me back in posting the most controversial TV program episode ever in UK TV history ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:21 pm   Post subject: MORE GILL   

Hi, corpusvile, professional experts are just as easily swayed by their peers as any other group of people. Someone you know hands a report, calls it "a miscarriage of justice". You take said report, read it without checking the background, and next thing you know, you've written Conti and Vechiotti II or Bruce Budowle III and called the case "a miscarriage of justice" in your own book. Embarrassing.

Happened to Hampikian, Kassin, Hendry, Gill and a whole lot more. Too bad they don't know how toxic this case is, and the levels of scholarly deception, but hey, they want to get on Amanda Knox's bus as she drives it over a cliff, who am I to stop them?

Raffaele Sollecito's expert Professor Vinci was at a Forensics conference in Seattle giving his flawed presentation to a whole bunch of tired scientists. Who knows how many of them had their opinions affected, as Gill's was, by this form of collegial pressure?

Professor Gill promises to post any updates at his site https://sites.google.com/site/peterdgill/

So far, he has not done so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Please do post that episode as well, Michael.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:30 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

SwanseaJack wrote:
jape wrote:
SwanseaJack wrote:


During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill's agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research before publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack


Did he really write that? Where is his evidence for the assertion? That's truly shocking. No respect for this man, none at all.

Is it Gill who also thinks that the knife was placed in a shoe box that had been mailed to Meredith Kercher or was that somebody else?


I believe Gill stated that rep 36 was transported in a shoe box from Sollecito's appartment, as for the bra clasp there is no evidence of it being "kicked about" and this a very presumptious statement indeed.



Not in his book, but in his BBC radio interview, he even claimed that the shoe box used to transport the knife had previously been owned by Meredith Kercher and had come from the cottage. This was of course, pure nonsense.

Had this have been true though, it would have provided the direct evidence of contamination that he argued was required in his book. However, for some strange reason, he neglected to add this claim of the shoe box originally being Meredith's in his book, a very important detail one would have thought, to make it only in interview.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Please do post that episode as well, Michael.



Okay, but nobody watch if they're easily offended, it doesn't pull its punches. It is a satire on the media and celebrity, not paedophilia:

Brass Eye Episode 07 - Paedogeddon! (Special)




As a bit of background. The British tabloid press had been running a paedophilia campaign, whereby they were portraying a threat of predatory paedophiles hiding behind every bush and on every street corner. The result, was mass hysteria. The culmination, was your proverbial torch and pitch fork mobs taking to the streets on British housing estates, to hunt down paedophiles. One of the results, was a the house of a local paediatrician being stormed and spray painted with abuse. The paediatrician had to be removed by the police and placed into protective police custody, all because the mob didn't know what the difference was between a paedophile and a paediatrician, all they knew was that it had the name "paed" in it and that was enough. That's how bad things got, thanks to the media who were only too happy to drum this hysteria and moral outrage up.

The talking head celebrities and Members of Parliament in this are real (many of which are very well known faces in the UK and are very intelligent), who have no idea that they're being sent up, and are talking complete drivel. It's for this reason that it doesn't surprise me at all that the FOAKers are able also to get celebrity authors/experts to talk complete drivel about this case.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 297

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Corpusvile wrote:
Brass Eye was brilliant. You should see the episode "paedogeddon" which satirizes paedophile hysteria, it's rib crackingly funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU (NSFW)



Oh yes, I've seen them all and that episode is probably the most scathing of the sensationalised media, but maybe something held me back in posting the most controversial TV program episode ever in UK TV history ;)


I forget who wrote the article about it now, but Brass Eye was quite a clever con or 'sting'. Although the show wasn't made for the BBC, Chris Morris used his BBC contacts to hire rooms in Television Centre, and 'celebrity' participants were contacted using phoney notepaper and told they were participating in a BBC documentary and they turned up and were interviewed apparently by BBC personnel at Television Centre and handed these phoney notes and it all looked legit and that's how they were prevailed on to say these ridiculous things (about the nonexistent drug 'cake', or about paedophiles sharing 90 per cent of their DNA with crabs) on camera.

It was a bit like Stanley Milgram's 'Obedience To Authority' experiment -- people will do practically anything if they're led to believe it's OK and official -- and it was revealing, but dodgy.

Thanks to Ergon for the password help -- that did actually work, which is almost uncanny since, when it comes to IT, I'm like the Richard Burton character in The Medusa Touch: 'I have a talent for disaster.'
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hugo wrote:
It was a bit like Stanley Milgram's 'Obedience To Authority' experiment -- people will do practically anything if they're led to believe it's OK and official -- and it was revealing, but dodgy.


Hi Hugo. Yes, exactly like that. Having watched this, one realises that it's actually possible to get celebrities and politicians, in all seriousness, to say absolutely anything.

Ali G/Borat is another very clever British comedian that exposes this phenomenon (whom I'm sure, was inspired by Brass Eye).

Of course, not only celebrities are the target here, but also the media itself, the media's tendency to sensationalise key social issues and revel in the resulting moral panic.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:45 pm   Post subject: MORE GILL, CONFUSED   

I know about the BBC interview but never looked at it preferring to wait for the book, Michael. Can it be posted here again in the new thread? He's clearly been fed the defense line when he made the interview, but to carry it over into his book without fact checking?

p. 136, 5.4.5: Gill says the Supreme Court reasoning is "not available" (it was posted on ORG last year but it seems he only went to the pro-Knox sites) but will comment on his site when it is. So far, he hasn't.

p. 137.5.5.5: "the purpose of the court is to combine the various parts of the evidence in order to make a decision on the guilt/innocence of the defendants. However, this is outside the scope of the following discussion", then includes "The Death Of Meredith Kercher" as an example of 'miscarriages of justice'.

p. 137, 5.5.5: "Rudy Guede was (and remains) convicted of the murder of Kercher ---- the evidence linking him to the murder is not further discussed here" then helpfully summarizes the evidence on the same page as a footnote :)

P.154, 5.15 Final Remarks: "Recall that the knife item 36 was repackaged in a shoe box that was not DNA free (and it is unknown what it previously contained). There was opportunity for DNA to transfer from the walls of the shoe box to the knife, and vice versa. This important finding by Goray et al. is also highly significant with respect to the conclusion of the Massei report claiming that the distribution of DNA on the knife supported the hypothesis of stabbing motion".

Aside from the howler about the 'shoe box', he's mixing two arguments here, citing (ibid) Goray who in an experiment with the transport of knives in cardboard tubes showed "DNA loss by transfer to the container walls, it was shown that the DNA was redistributed so that the profiles on the blade ended up on the handle and vice versa". Whereas Massei states the placement of sample A on the handle showing Knox's profile on the handle and sample B showing Meredith's profile was proof of the actual murder, Gill misapplies Goray's experiment to claim contamination and further confuse people.

Oh, well. More to come.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
I know about the BBC interview but never looked at it preferring to wait for the book, Michael. Can it be posted here again in the new thread? He's clearly been fed the defense line when he made the interview, but to carry it over into his book without fact checking?


If there's a podcast of it I can upload it here. Does anyone have the link to it?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE GILL   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, corpusvile, professional experts are just as easily swayed by their peers as any other group of people. Someone you know hands a report, calls it "a miscarriage of justice". You take said report, read it without checking the background, and next thing you know, you've written Conti and Vechiotti II or Bruce Budowle III and called the case "a miscarriage of justice" in your own book. Embarrassing.

Happened to Hampikian, Kassin, Hendry, Gill and a whole lot more. Too bad they don't know how toxic this case is, and the levels of scholarly deception, but hey, they want to get on Amanda Knox's bus as she drives it over a cliff, who am I to stop them?

Raffaele Sollecito's expert Professor Vinci was at a Forensics conference in Seattle giving his flawed presentation to a whole bunch of tired scientists. Who knows how many of them had their opinions affected, as Gill's was, by this form of collegial pressure?

Professor Gill promises to post any updates at his site https://sites.google.com/site/peterdgill/

So far, he has not done so.


Thanks for the insight Ergon, I just expected scientists to be above that, I guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Please do post that episode as well, Michael.



Okay, but nobody watch if they're easily offended, it doesn't pull its punches. It is a satire on the media and celebrity, not paedophilia:

Brass Eye Episode 07 - Paedogeddon! (Special)




As a bit of background. The British tabloid press had been running a paedophilia campaign, whereby they were portraying a threat of predatory paedophiles hiding behind every bush and on every street corner. The result, was mass hysteria. The culmination, was your proverbial torch and pitch fork mobs taking to the streets on British housing estates, to hunt down paedophiles. One of the results, was a the house of a local paediatrician being stormed and spray painted with abuse. The paediatrician had to be removed by the police and placed into protective police custody, all because the mob didn't know what the difference was between a paedophile and a paediatrician, all they knew was that it had the name "paed" in it and that was enough. That's how bad things got, thanks to the media who were only too happy to drum this hysteria and moral outrage up.

The talking head celebrities and Members of Parliament in this are real (many of which are very well known faces in the UK and are very intelligent), who have no idea that they're being sent up, and are talking complete drivel. It's for this reason that it doesn't surprise me at all that the FOAKers are able also to get celebrity authors/experts to talk complete drivel about this case.


Lol I also remember The Sun (I think) condemning the programme and the next page had a picture of a then 15-year-old Charlotte Church with the tagline "She's a big girl now!" :lol:
You've very probably already seen Morris' Four Lions but highly recommended film if you haven't yet, it's also hilarious. ;)

That's actually a very interesting point re FOA similarities and that never occurred to me, I gotta say.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Corpusvile wrote:
Brass Eye was brilliant. You should see the episode "paedogeddon" which satirizes paedophile hysteria, it's rib crackingly funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU (NSFW)



Oh yes, I've seen them all and that episode is probably the most scathing of the sensationalised media, but maybe something held me back in posting the most controversial TV program episode ever in UK TV history ;)

Yeah that actually occurred to me after posting, my bad. is) oop-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Amanda Knox's appeal to the Supreme Court has been quietly uploaded to IIP and linked to in an article recently published by Luca Cheli on one of Fischer's other websites, Wrongful Convictions.

It has not been uploaded to Knox's blog yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It's in Italian, apparently, and just a summary by Luca Cheli on the Wrongful Convictions blog. She asked for translators to help her but only @Giufuliafa volunteered AFAIK. Too bad she got caught plagiarizing our translations from the Meredith Kercher Wiki.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:48 pm   Post subject: AMANDA KNOX'S ECHR FILING   

Carrying forward from my post in the old thread Knox appeal to ECHR Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:38 pm

Breaking News-Details of Amanda Knox appeal of her calunnia conviction to the European Court for Human Rights


Quote:
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your mail and your interest in the Court.

An application lodged by Amanda Marie Know (sic) has indeed been registered by the Registry of the Court on 6 December 2013. The Court will examine it in due time.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit


Another received shortly after:

Quote:
Dear Sir,

The application number is 76577/13 and the applicant is represented by Avv. Carlo Dalla Vedova (Roma).

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit


She has not yet released the details of her appeal publically.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox's appeal to the Supreme Court has been quietly uploaded to IIP and linked to in an article recently published by Luca Cheli on one of Fischer's other websites, Wrongful Convictions.

It has not been uploaded to Knox's blog yet.



Yep, not to her own site. And to IIP very quietly. She...has...no...confidence...in...it...at...all.

Neither do her followers.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
Michael wrote:
Corpusvile wrote:
Brass Eye was brilliant. You should see the episode "paedogeddon" which satirizes paedophile hysteria, it's rib crackingly funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU (NSFW)



Oh yes, I've seen them all and that episode is probably the most scathing of the sensationalised media, but maybe something held me back in posting the most controversial TV program episode ever in UK TV history ;)

Yeah that actually occurred to me after posting, my bad. is) oop-)



It's okay, I didn't mean it as a rebuke. It's just that I'm a site Admin and as such, I have to put a bit more thought into what is posted here. That means thinking long and hard about posting something that may cause a great deal of offence to some people and so, I have to make a judgment call over whether it's justifiable or not.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: AMANDA KNOX'S ECHR FILING   

Ergon wrote:
Carrying forward from my post in the old thread Knox appeal to ECHR Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:38 pm

Breaking News-Details of Amanda Knox appeal of her calunnia conviction to the European Court for Human Rights


Quote:
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your mail and your interest in the Court.

An application lodged by Amanda Marie Know (sic) has indeed been registered by the Registry of the Court on 6 December 2013. The Court will examine it in due time.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit


Another received shortly after:

Quote:
Dear Sir,

The application number is 76577/13 and the applicant is represented by Avv. Carlo Dalla Vedova (Roma).

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit


She has not yet released the details of her appeal publically.



That's because, it was only ever done in the first place as a stunt in order to grab a quick headline to make it appear like she has a case. She doesn't, she knows she doesn't and she knew from the beginning that that appeal would go absolutely nowhere. That part of it, she doesn't want people to see.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
It's in Italian, apparently, and just a summary by Luca Cheli on the Wrongful Convictions blog. She asked for translators to help her but only @Giufuliafa volunteered AFAIK. Too bad she got caught plagiarizing our translations from the Meredith Kercher Wiki.


Hi Ergon,

Yes, it is the original in Italian. Even the Italian version has not been available before.

A visit to IIP shows that the latest appeal is not announced in any way, which is odd given that the website is solely dedicated to the defence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

If you navigate to Appeal on IIP, you will find that the last appeal uploaded and announced is the one that was filed to the appeal court, not the Corte di Cassazione.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:17 pm   Post subject: FURTHER NOTES ON ECHR   

There was some question on admissibility to ECHR. My previous post on that, carried over: ECHR rules Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:39 pm

Source
#26: "Applications must meet certain requirements if they are to be declared admissible by the Court; otherwise the complaints will not even be examined. Cases can only be brought to the Court after domestic remedies have been exhausted; in other words, individuals complaining of violations of their rights must first have taken their case through the courts of the country concerned, up to the highest possible level of jurisdiction. In this way the State itself is first given an opportunity to provide redress for the alleged violation at national level. An applicant’s allegations must concern. one or more of the rights defined in the Convention. The Court cannot examine complaints concerning violations of any other rights.

Applications must also be lodged with the Court within six months following the last judicial decision in the case, which will usually be a judgment by the highest court in the country concerned."

There is some disagreement whether the appeal was filed too late or not, so I'll wait to hear if it passed the admissibility hearings. She'll be back there after the murder conviction is finalized, sigh.

She might want to look at #28, What is a third-party intervener? Plane loads of us vs. them showing up :)

Will Saul Kassin, Greg Hampikian, and Peter Gill finally testify on behalf of Knox? sur-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Not much to see, Michael, but here he says it was a cardboard box. TV is one thing though, but a book you authored? Sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewOJqi74REc
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And here's the link to the BBC Radio 4 podcast https://audioboo.fm/boos/2235453-prof-p ... -knox-case where he talks about the 'semen stain' and https://audioboo.fm/boos/2245384-sellec ... nsfer-risk for inadvertent DNA transfer risks (I think a full video and radio report may be found on the BBC site) Note these excerpts appeared in June just before the book was published.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Not much to see, Michael, but here he says it was a cardboard box. TV is one thing though, but a book you authored? Sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewOJqi74REc



I'll embed that then:



_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
And here's the link to the BBC Radio 4 podcast https://audioboo.fm/boos/2235453-prof-p ... -knox-case where he talks about the 'semen stain' and https://audioboo.fm/boos/2245384-sellec ... nsfer-risk for inadvertent DNA transfer risks (I think a full video and radio report may be found on the BBC site) Note these excerpts appeared in June just before the book was published.



Okay, podcasts embedded:


Prof Peter Gill DNA expert on the Amanda Knox case





Sellecito (sic) Prof Peter Gill DNA expert explains innocent transfer risk


_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hugo wrote:
Thanks to Ergon for the password help -- that did actually work, which is almost uncanny since, when it comes to IT, I'm like the Richard Burton character in The Medusa Touch: 'I have a talent for disaster.'



That's the one where he ends up blowing up Windscale, isn't it?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Jack, and welcome to PMF NET! Gill does indeed write the knife was "transported in a shoe box" (Chapter 5) I got his book soon as it was published but was writing about his claims before that.

He, like Kassin, distanced himself and refused to defend their opinions once caught out. Gill lied in his e-mail to you, by the way, since he calls the case a "miscarriage of justice" (p164)

Don't get me started about 'scientists' and 'experts' (especially the FBI kind :) who whore themselves for media attention and future careers. And the sciency groupies who lick their bottoms. The lazy fecking media. And especially, those who lie about this case.

Don't forget I'll be collecting my skull attack one day, friend.

Naseer


Hello my friend there is a cold skull attack waiting for you
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Hugo wrote:
Thanks to Ergon for the password help -- that did actually work, which is almost uncanny since, when it comes to IT, I'm like the Richard Burton character in The Medusa Touch: 'I have a talent for disaster.'



That's the one where he ends up blowing up Windscale, isn't it?

Yep. Haven't seen it since I was a kid and keep meaning to revisit it actually.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
And here's the link to the BBC Radio 4 podcast https://audioboo.fm/boos/2235453-prof-p ... -knox-case where he talks about the 'semen stain' and https://audioboo.fm/boos/2245384-sellec ... nsfer-risk for inadvertent DNA transfer risks (I think a full video and radio report may be found on the BBC site) Note these excerpts appeared in June just before the book was published.


Ah... the 'old' semen stain that hasn't been tested and will not be tested. Wonder where he got the idea to complain about 'that' evidence/non-evidence.

stup-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

dgfred wrote:
Ergon wrote:
And here's the link to the BBC Radio 4 podcast https://audioboo.fm/boos/2235453-prof-p ... -knox-case where he talks about the 'semen stain' and https://audioboo.fm/boos/2245384-sellec ... nsfer-risk for inadvertent DNA transfer risks (I think a full video and radio report may be found on the BBC site) Note these excerpts appeared in June just before the book was published.


Ah... the 'old' semen stain that hasn't been tested and will not be tested. Wonder where he got the idea to complain about 'that' evidence/non-evidence.

stup-)



Yeah, Gill claims that it could have possibly provided exoneratory evidence by showing someone else was there, without explaining how, if it showed that, it would also erase Knox and Sollecito's bloody footprints from the crime scene, along with his DNA off the clasp, her DNA from Meredith's blood, her blood from the tap that she herself dated to the night of the murder, the clearly staged break-in, nor their alibis that have have constantly changed, never matched and are not supported by any corroborative evidence, plus all the other little pieces of evidence and clues against them. That would be one hell of a semen stain to erase all that and exonerate them!!!!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: AMANDA KNOX'S ECHR FILING   

Michael wrote:
That's because, it was only ever done in the first place as a stunt in order to grab a quick headline to make it appear like she has a case. She doesn't, she knows she doesn't and she knew from the beginning that that appeal would go absolutely nowhere. That part of it, she doesn't want people to see.


I would be interested in seeing this appeal document. I don't think it's a stunt--I'm sure they think and hope that they will prevail. I doubt that the refusal to disclose the document has anything to do with the merits; to the contrary, I suspect that they are keeping this quiet in hopes that the ECHR process will play out without the kind of media intensity that we see elsewhere. I am a little surprised that Della Vedova is the counsel for this appeal . . . I had figured that she would hook up with some high-powered firm out of London/NYC.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this thing goes. The odds of getting an ECHR appeal accepted are low, something around 20% for an appeal involving a trial in Italy if I was looking at the right statistics. That said, the issues that Knox presumably has raised seem to be of recent interest to the ECHR. I've been reading the new ECHR cases on Art. 6 as they come along, and I see quite a few Art. 6 violations being found of late, and Knox's facts will be pretty good on a few points. In fact, I believe that the part of Hellman's decision that was affirmed by the ISC may be sufficient in itself to support a finding of an Art. 6 violation. (Sometimes I wonder: Did Hellman intentionally set a trap against ISC reversal?)

Of course, if Knox's appeal is accepted and she ends up prevailing, the ramifications could be very significant. Italy would have to go back and "fix" the fair trial violation, which ordinarily would require a new trial, but in this case, I suspect that they would be out of time to do so, so I don't know what remedy will apply. The other interesting question would be the impact on any pending extradition proceedings in the event that Knox prevails on the claim that Italy violated her human rights. I would imagine that that would kill any extradition process, but who knows.

If Knox's appeal isn't accepted or she loses, then it's on to the next one I guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Ergon wrote:
And here's the link to the BBC Radio 4 podcast https://audioboo.fm/boos/2235453-prof-p ... -knox-case where he talks about the 'semen stain' and https://audioboo.fm/boos/2245384-sellec ... nsfer-risk for inadvertent DNA transfer risks (I think a full video and radio report may be found on the BBC site) Note these excerpts appeared in June just before the book was published.


Ah... the 'old' semen stain that hasn't been tested and will not be tested. Wonder where he got the idea to complain about 'that' evidence/non-evidence.

stup-)



Yeah, Gill claims that it could have possibly provided exoneratory evidence by showing someone else was there, without explaining how, if it showed that, it would also erase Knox and Sollecito's bloody footprints from the crime scene, along with his DNA off the clasp, her DNA from Meredith's blood, her blood from the tap that she herself dated to the night of the murder, the clearly staged break-in, nor their alibis that have have constantly changed, never matched and are not supported by any corroborative evidence, plus all the other little pieces of evidence and clues against them. That would be one hell of a semen stain to erase all that and exonerate them!!!!


Don't underestimate the power of a semen stain. After all, a semen stain got a President impeached.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
I would be interested in seeing this appeal document. I don't think it's a stunt--I'm sure they think and hope that they will prevail. I doubt that the refusal to disclose the document has anything to do with the merits; to the contrary, I suspect that they are keeping this quiet in hopes that the ECHR process will play out without the kind of media intensity that we see elsewhere. I am a little surprised that Della Vedova is the counsel for this appeal . . . I had figured that she would hook up with some high-powered firm out of London/NYC.



If it's ever anything whatsoever positive for Knox, then they certainly want the media intensity! When has it ever been otherwise???

Why some high powered firm out of London or NYC? They wouldn't have jurisdiction to handle it in the ECHR as it's an Italian case, it therefore must be handled by her Italian lawyers.


Diocletian wrote:
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this thing goes. The odds of getting an ECHR appeal accepted are low, something around 20% for an appeal involving a trial in Italy if I was looking at the right statistics. That said, the issues that Knox presumably has raised seem to be of recent interest to the ECHR. I've been reading the new ECHR cases on Art. 6 as they come along, and I see quite a few Art. 6 violations being found of late, and Knox's facts will be pretty good on a few points. In fact, I believe that the part of Hellman's decision that was affirmed by the ISC may be sufficient in itself to support a finding of an Art. 6 violation. (Sometimes I wonder: Did Hellman intentionally set a trap against ISC reversal?)


Perhaps you can offer us some precedents, ones that are comparative to this case. Why would Hellmann do that? He's the one who declared Knox innocent (aside from the calunnia) and released her to fly off home to the States. He was strict on the calunnia only to try and mask the fact that he let her off everything else. And he even ballsed that up, by ruling that the calunnia wasn't committed in continuation.


Diocletian wrote:
Of course, if Knox's appeal is accepted and she ends up prevailing, the ramifications could be very significant. Italy would have to go back and "fix" the fair trial violation, which ordinarily would require a new trial, but in this case, I suspect that they would be out of time to do so, so I don't know what remedy will apply. The other interesting question would be the impact on any pending extradition proceedings in the event that Knox prevails on the claim that Italy violated her human rights. I would imagine that that would kill any extradition process, but who knows.


No, it doesn't work like that at all. The ECHR has no powers to order nation state high courts what to do. At most, the Italians would be required to pay a modest financial compensation. Clearly, you don't know anything about the ECHR and its powers. Please put in a board search on the issue, as we've already had this discussion here in some depth, which also included the posting of relevant source material. I don't feel inclined to have the whole discussion over again from step one.

I might also remind you, the appeal to the ECHR concerns Knox's conviction for calunnia and that only, so it has no bearing on her extradition process since the extradition would be for rape and murder!

Diocletian wrote:
Don't underestimate the power of a semen stain. After all, a semen stain got a President impeached.


How is that in any way relevant to "This" case?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Listening to oft-repeated lies
The mind doth wander
Into maggots in the pie

Merrily, aye, what then of vacations in this year
I enquired
Oh no said he, for I am here and she is there and that's good of me isn't it (judge)
I do not need to run for I did nothing, do nothing and will never do anything
While, I'm not saying anything but just sayin', she left me to it, left immediately
Whereupon I realised I just can't say anything but just sayin', I cannot vouch for her presence in my domain on that night, I recall I took a bite of a pie, there was a maggot in it, she said she did not put it there, and I said it's okay, I know it's not you it's me, but now I think this was probably another day. I did ask, why did you put that maggot in my life, I mean pie, and does the maggot symbolise anything in particular, or are you er ... strange, she said no, I just like seeing people's faces when I do tricks on them for a joke. I said it is okay, the maggot did not bite and let's forget it. After that, I probably took a sip of juice, yes I recall I took 2 steps forward and nine steps back and I remember I thought, it's time I retired. After that I don't know where she went, I never knew her, never saw her again until breakfast, I recall she was a lodger, and I don't have time for all this, my life ... bla bla bla, yes and it's all their fault, they, them that say those things, they are insane, me I'm just me, I drive a smooth car, yes I dress in the expensive designer clothes, I have everything I could want or need, however, my father he speaks with the others, who for want of money are the best we could get but useless, while I said, no, no, whoo-up, whoo-ha, no I shall not say that about her, for I am the man of honor. I will not be bribed by the prosecutor thank you, good day, is what I said. I recall, I looked left, looked right, ate another something, looked up looked down and then thought, they are beneath me, making the deals, I don't recall if she was there though that night. She could have been anywhere and probably was. I've learned my lesson now, I should not have been so helpful when I did not know anything. Now look at the mess I'm in, and it's all because of her.
Somehow, though I dare not yet explain fully what I mean, I shall have to fit it in at some later more desperate moment in the ever decreasing amount of time I still have on my sock-covered and shoed own free feet, but, if fate should have it that I shall be enshrined yet again by metal bars, I shall write my memoirs and though I will be behind bars, there will be no holds barred when I write my masterpiece. Then everyone will know how I have been martyred, tricked, fooled, there is but a sole killer and her name is not Guede.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that at all. The ECHR has no powers to order nation state high courts what to do. At most, the Italians would be required to pay a modest financial compensation. Clearly, you don't know anything about the ECHR and its powers. Please put in a board search on the issue, as we've already had this discussion here in some depth, which also included the posting of relevant source material. I don't feel inclined to have the whole discussion over again from step one.

I'm just relying on actual ECHR decisions. For example: Pakshayev v. Russia (2014) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-141624

In a murder investigation, Pakshayev was arrested, provided with a written notification of his rights, and then questioned at 6:30 PM. Under domestic law, suspects were not entitled to a lawyer until arrest warrant had been read out loud. Pakshayev alleges that after receiving written notification of his rights (but before the arrest warrant was read out loud) he requested and was denied counsel, was threatened with rape if he did not confess, and consequently confessed at 8:20 PM. Following the confession, the police read out loud the arrest warrant and provided Pakshayev with counsel, after which he retracted his confession.

Russia argued that its domestic law provided for a right to counsel only after a suspect’s arrest warrant had been read out loud to him, and since Pakshayev confessed before his arrest warrant had been read out loud, there was no violation of the right to counsel. The ECtHR rejected Russia’s claim, finding that Pakshayev had a right to counsel from the outset of his questioning as a suspect and that he had attempted to exercise this right. The ECtHR summarized the law as follows:

Quote:
As regards legal assistance at the pre-trial stages of the proceedings, the Court has held that the particular vulnerability of the accused at the initial stages of police questioning can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer, whose task is, among other things, to help to ensure respect for the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. Accordingly, in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first questioning of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict that right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. The rights of the defence will, in principle, be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police questioning without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008, and Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 64-66 and 83, 11 December 2008).

Because the confession without counsel was used to convict Pakshayev, a reopening of the criminal proceedings for trial de novo was necessary:

Quote:
39. The Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005‑IV, and Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 112, 2 November 2010). The Court notes, in that connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see paragraph 17 above).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
I might also remind you, the appeal to the ECHR concerns Knox's conviction for calunnia and that only, so it has no bearing on her extradition process since the extradition would be for rape and murder!

Well, yes, but two things:

1. They used the callunnia to convict for rape and murder so, as you say, they ballsed up the whole thing. In retrospect, if they wanted a bullet-proof conviction, they should have disregarded the whole callunnia/confession thing.

2. Just as a practical matter, if the ECtHR says: "Italy violated its treaty obligations and the defendant's human rights by conducting an unfair trial" it's going to be a big problem if Italy then turns around to the US and says "hand over this person whose human rights and right to a fair trial we violated in contravention of our treaty obligations." In fact, I imagine that Italy would not request extradition under this circumstance, but that's just a guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that at all. The ECHR has no powers to order nation state high courts what to do. At most, the Italians would be required to pay a modest financial compensation. Clearly, you don't know anything about the ECHR and its powers. Please put in a board search on the issue, as we've already had this discussion here in some depth, which also included the posting of relevant source material. I don't feel inclined to have the whole discussion over again from step one.

I'm just relying on actual ECHR decisions. For example: Pakshayev v. Russia (2014) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-141624

In a murder investigation, Pakshayev was arrested, provided with a written notification of his rights, and then questioned at 6:30 PM. Under domestic law, suspects were not entitled to a lawyer until arrest warrant had been read out loud. Pakshayev alleges that after receiving written notification of his rights (but before the arrest warrant was read out loud) he requested and was denied counsel, was threatened with rape if he did not confess, and consequently confessed at 8:20 PM. Following the confession, the police read out loud the arrest warrant and provided Pakshayev with counsel, after which he retracted his confession.

Russia argued that its domestic law provided for a right to counsel only after a suspect’s arrest warrant had been read out loud to him, and since Pakshayev confessed before his arrest warrant had been read out loud, there was no violation of the right to counsel. The ECtHR rejected Russia’s claim, finding that Pakshayev had a right to counsel from the outset of his questioning as a suspect and that he had attempted to exercise this right. The ECtHR summarized the law as follows:

Quote:
As regards legal assistance at the pre-trial stages of the proceedings, the Court has held that the particular vulnerability of the accused at the initial stages of police questioning can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer, whose task is, among other things, to help to ensure respect for the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. Accordingly, in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first questioning of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict that right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. The rights of the defence will, in principle, be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police questioning without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008, and Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 64-66 and 83, 11 December 2008).

Because the confession without counsel was used to convict Pakshayev, a reopening of the criminal proceedings for trial de novo was necessary:

Quote:
39. The Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005‑IV, and Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 112, 2 November 2010). The Court notes, in that connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see paragraph 17 above).



Right, and that's comparable to this case how? Knox was a witness, not a suspect. Knox was not threatened with rape (which would be clear coercion) or any other mistreatment. She did not request a lawyer. As soon as she did incriminate herself, she was formally made a suspect and the interrogation was halted, in full compliance with Italian law. She then later, demanded to be heard again despite being warned that her status was now as a suspect and waved her right to a lawyer, as was her right. She then wrote alone in her cell a repeat of her partial confession and accusation of Mr Lumumba in her cell off her own back and handed it to the police. It was THIS written voluntary statement that was responsible for her being convicted of calunnia. Did Pakshayev do anything similar?

You do know, by the way, that the ECHR has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER over Russia and her courts whatsoever, right?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
I might also remind you, the appeal to the ECHR concerns Knox's conviction for calunnia and that only, so it has no bearing on her extradition process since the extradition would be for rape and murder!

Well, yes, but two things:

1. They used the callunnia to convict for rape and murder so, as you say, they ballsed up the whole thing. In retrospect, if they wanted a bullet-proof conviction, they should have disregarded the whole callunnia/confession thing.

2. Just as a practical matter, if the ECtHR says: "Italy violated its treaty obligations and the defendant's human rights by conducting an unfair trial" it's going to be a big problem if Italy then turns around to the US and says "hand over this person whose human rights and right to a fair trial we violated in contravention of our treaty obligations." In fact, I imagine that Italy would not request extradition under this circumstance, but that's just a guess.


No, they didn't. There were several hundred pages of OTHER evidence that convicted Knox and Sollecito of rape and murder. And just to refine the point, none of Knox's statements were used against Sollecito as evidence at all, yet he was still convicted. Knox's convictions for rape, theft and murder, cannot be said to be dependent in any way, on her statements made to the police and Mignini.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

By the way, how long's it been since she entered her appeal to the ECHR? 8 months? Where are the results then?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, it doesn't work like that at all. The ECHR has no powers to order nation state high courts what to do. At most, the Italians would be required to pay a modest financial compensation. Clearly, you don't know anything about the ECHR and its powers. Please put in a board search on the issue, as we've already had this discussion here in some depth, which also included the posting of relevant source material. I don't feel inclined to have the whole discussion over again from step one.

I'm just relying on actual ECHR decisions. For example: Pakshayev v. Russia (2014) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-141624

In a murder investigation, Pakshayev was arrested, provided with a written notification of his rights, and then questioned at 6:30 PM. Under domestic law, suspects were not entitled to a lawyer until arrest warrant had been read out loud. Pakshayev alleges that after receiving written notification of his rights (but before the arrest warrant was read out loud) he requested and was denied counsel, was threatened with rape if he did not confess, and consequently confessed at 8:20 PM. Following the confession, the police read out loud the arrest warrant and provided Pakshayev with counsel, after which he retracted his confession.

Russia argued that its domestic law provided for a right to counsel only after a suspect’s arrest warrant had been read out loud to him, and since Pakshayev confessed before his arrest warrant had been read out loud, there was no violation of the right to counsel. The ECtHR rejected Russia’s claim, finding that Pakshayev had a right to counsel from the outset of his questioning as a suspect and that he had attempted to exercise this right. The ECtHR summarized the law as follows:

Quote:
As regards legal assistance at the pre-trial stages of the proceedings, the Court has held that the particular vulnerability of the accused at the initial stages of police questioning can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer, whose task is, among other things, to help to ensure respect for the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. Accordingly, in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first questioning of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict that right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. The rights of the defence will, in principle, be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police questioning without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008, and Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 64-66 and 83, 11 December 2008).

Because the confession without counsel was used to convict Pakshayev, a reopening of the criminal proceedings for trial de novo was necessary:

Quote:
39. The Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005‑IV, and Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 112, 2 November 2010). The Court notes, in that connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see paragraph 17 above).


Right, and that's comparable to this case how? Knox was a witness, not a suspect. Knox was not threatened with rape (which would be clear coercion) or any other mistreatment. She did not request a lawyer. As soon as she did incriminate herself, she was formally made a suspect and the interrogation was halted, in full compliance with Italian law. She then later, demanded to be heard again despite being warned that her status was now as a suspect and waved her right to a lawyer, as was her right. She then wrote alone in her cell a repeat of her partial confession and accusation of Mr Lumumba in her cell off her own back and handed it to the police. It was THIS written voluntary statement that was responsible for her being convicted of calunnia.


Well, I don't know about that. Hellman said this and the ISC agreed when it affirmed him on this point:

Quote:
The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later.


Michael wrote:
You do know, by the way, that the ECHR has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER over Russia and her courts whatsoever, right?


As a practical matter, they do if Russia wants to remain a party to the treaty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
As a practical matter, they do if Russia wants to remain a party to the treaty.


They aren't even part of Europe.

But, I think you missed the part where I told you that the ECHR has no power over the nation state courts. They cannot tell the courts what to do. They cannot annul convictions, change sentences or order retrials.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
By the way, how long's it been since she entered her appeal to the ECHR? 8 months? Where are the results then?


That sounds right. It seems to take about a year to a year and a half for the appeal to be transmitted to the country involved. It's a pretty slow process.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
By the way, how long's it been since she entered her appeal to the ECHR? 8 months? Where are the results then?


That sounds right. It seems to take about a year to a year and a half for the appeal to be transmitted to the country involved. It's a pretty slow process.



And you use what for your yardstick for that estimate?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
As a practical matter, they do if Russia wants to remain a party to the treaty.


They aren't even part of Europe.

But, I think you missed the part where I told you that the ECHR has no power over the nation state courts. They cannot tell the courts what to do. They cannot annul convictions, change sentences or order retrials.


They can find treaty violations and state that the proper remedy is a trial de novo, and they frequently do this. Could a national court then say "we refuse a retrial"? I guess. How often does Italy do that? My guess: never.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
By the way, how long's it been since she entered her appeal to the ECHR? 8 months? Where are the results then?


That sounds right. It seems to take about a year to a year and a half for the appeal to be transmitted to the country involved. It's a pretty slow process.



And you use what for your yardstick for that estimate?


I read the ECHR cases and they tell you when the case was filed and when it was transmitted. A year to a year and a half is my estimate based on the decisions that I've read.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
As a practical matter, they do if Russia wants to remain a party to the treaty.


They aren't even part of Europe.

But, I think you missed the part where I told you that the ECHR has no power over the nation state courts. They cannot tell the courts what to do. They cannot annul convictions, change sentences or order retrials.


They can find treaty violations and state that the proper remedy is a trial de novo, and they frequently do this. Could a national court then say "we refuse a retrial"? I guess. How often does Italy do that? My guess: never.


Back at you...why don't you give us a list of all the trials that have been retried purely on the basis of a ruling by the ECHR? Trust me, it won't take you long to write a list consisting of zero.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
By the way, how long's it been since she entered her appeal to the ECHR? 8 months? Where are the results then?


That sounds right. It seems to take about a year to a year and a half for the appeal to be transmitted to the country involved. It's a pretty slow process.



And you use what for your yardstick for that estimate?


I read the ECHR cases and they tell you when the case was filed and when it was transmitted. A year to a year and a half is my estimate based on the decisions that I've read.


Okay. Your estimate.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Ergon wrote:
And here's the link to the BBC Radio 4 podcast https://audioboo.fm/boos/2235453-prof-p ... -knox-case where he talks about the 'semen stain' and https://audioboo.fm/boos/2245384-sellec ... nsfer-risk for inadvertent DNA transfer risks (I think a full video and radio report may be found on the BBC site) Note these excerpts appeared in June just before the book was published.


Ah... the 'old' semen stain that hasn't been tested and will not be tested. Wonder where he got the idea to complain about 'that' evidence/non-evidence.

stup-)





Yeah, Gill claims that it could have possibly provided exoneratory evidence by showing someone else was there, without explaining how, if it showed that, it would also erase Knox and Sollecito's bloody footprints from the crime scene, along with his DNA off the clasp, her DNA from Meredith's blood, her blood from the tap that she herself dated to the night of the murder, the clearly staged break-in, nor their alibis that have have constantly changed, never matched and are not supported by any corroborative evidence, plus all the other little pieces of evidence and clues against them. That would be one hell of a semen stain to erase all that and exonerate them!!!!


Don't underestimate the power of a semen stain. After all, a semen stain got a President impeached.


Yeah... only in your 'world' would something that was never tested and will never be tested offer some hope for the murderess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Whatever happened with Guede's appeal to the ECHR? That could give an idea what the ECHR thinks about this case ;)

Quote:
Following supreme court judge Umberto Giordano's verdict, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti said: "We are not at all satisfied and will take this to Strasbourg.

http://news.sky.com/story/825375/blow-t ... ys-in-jail
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Whatever happened with Guede's appeal to the ECHR? That could give an idea what the ECHR thinks about this case ;)

Quote:
Following supreme court judge Umberto Giordano's verdict, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti said: "We are not at all satisfied and will take this to Strasbourg.

http://news.sky.com/story/825375/blow-t ... ys-in-jail



What happened with his appeal is exactly the same thing that will happen to Knox's ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

max wrote:
Whatever happened with Guede's appeal to the ECHR? That could give an idea what the ECHR thinks about this case ;)

Quote:
Following supreme court judge Umberto Giordano's verdict, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti said: "We are not at all satisfied and will take this to Strasbourg.

http://news.sky.com/story/825375/blow-t ... ys-in-jail


Good question. For that matter, I thought that Lumumba and Venessa S might have somr sort of ECHR appeals, too, but don't know anything about them.

I don't know that any of these other proceedings would necessarily effect the specific issues presumably raised by Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
max wrote:
Whatever happened with Guede's appeal to the ECHR? That could give an idea what the ECHR thinks about this case ;)

Quote:
Following supreme court judge Umberto Giordano's verdict, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti said: "We are not at all satisfied and will take this to Strasbourg.

http://news.sky.com/story/825375/blow-t ... ys-in-jail



What happened with his appeal is exactly the same thing that will happen to Knox's ;)


What did happen to it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Let's examine. Knox's claim to the ECHR is one she can neither prove nor evidence. Her only evidence is her word, that of a proven liar. Her claim has already been investigated by the Italian authorities and has been found to be without foundation, on the basis of actual evidence. Multiple witnesses have testified under oath, that her claims were not true. We have even had her own lawyer, publicly saying her claim wasn't true. Her conviction for Calunnia, has been upheld by the Italian High Court. No new evidence has been provided to the ECHR that was not provided to the Cassation (or the Appeal and trial courts before that).

And so, the ECHR are going to rule in her favour...on the basis of "what"?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
max wrote:
Whatever happened with Guede's appeal to the ECHR? That could give an idea what the ECHR thinks about this case ;)

Quote:
Following supreme court judge Umberto Giordano's verdict, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti said: "We are not at all satisfied and will take this to Strasbourg.

http://news.sky.com/story/825375/blow-t ... ys-in-jail



What happened with his appeal is exactly the same thing that will happen to Knox's ;)


What did happen to it?



Absolutely nothing. Just as will happen with Knox's.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
max wrote:
Whatever happened with Guede's appeal to the ECHR? That could give an idea what the ECHR thinks about this case ;)

Quote:
Following supreme court judge Umberto Giordano's verdict, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti said: "We are not at all satisfied and will take this to Strasbourg.

http://news.sky.com/story/825375/blow-t ... ys-in-jail


Good question. For that matter, I thought that Lumumba and Venessa S might have somr sort of ECHR appeals, too, but don't know anything about them.

I don't know that any of these other proceedings would necessarily effect the specific issues presumably raised by Knox.


They said they were considering them, I think. But, we've had no confirmation on whether they actually decided to file and did so or not.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
As a practical matter, they do if Russia wants to remain a party to the treaty.


They aren't even part of Europe.

But, I think you missed the part where I told you that the ECHR has no power over the nation state courts. They cannot tell the courts what to do. They cannot annul convictions, change sentences or order retrials.


They can find treaty violations and state that the proper remedy is a trial de novo, and they frequently do this. Could a national court then say "we refuse a retrial"? I guess. How often does Italy do that? My guess: never.


Back at you...why don't you give us a list of all the trials that have been retried purely on the basis of a ruling by the ECHR? Trust me, it won't take you long to write a list consisting of zero.


My guess is that that list would be longer than the list of people who were jailed or extradited after the ECHR had adjudged the trial to be in violation of Art. 6.

One problem is that by the time the ECHR adjudicates an Art. 6 violation, the underlying charge is usually already out of time (and so can't be retried). This certainly would be the case on the callunnia conviction, so there won't be a retrial on that charge--it will either stick (if she loses the appeal) or if she wins, she won't be retried. The latter would be a real problem, since they polluted the murder case with the callunnia stuff.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletion wrote:
My guess is that that list would be longer than the list of people who were jailed or extradited after the ECHR had adjudged the trial to be in violation of Art. 6.


Don't talk about it. Write it.

If any such precedents actually existed, they'd have been all over IIP to pump up the morale of the faithful loooong ago.

I shouldn't worry about her charge running out of time. The ECHR won't rule in her favour anyway.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Let's examine. Knox's claim to the ECHR is one she can neither prove nor evidence. Her only evidence is her word, that of a proven liar. Her claim has already been investigated by the Italian authorities and has been found to be without foundation, on the basis of actual evidence. Multiple witnesses have testified under oath, that her claims were not true. We have even had her own lawyer, publicly saying her claim wasn't true. Her conviction for Calunnia, has been upheld by the Italian High Court. No new evidence has been provided to the ECHR that was not provided to the Cassation (or the Appeal and trial courts before that).

And so, the ECHR are going to rule in her favour...on the basis of "what"?


Well, again, we do have this per Hellman, affirmed by ISC:

"The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements; a spontaneity which would have strangely [singolarmente] arisen in the middle of the night, after hours and hours of interrogation: the so-called spontaneous statements were made at 1:45 am (middle of the night) on 11-6-2007 (the day after the interrogation had started) and again at 5:45 am afterward, and the note was written a few hours later."

Does that state an ECHR violation? Note the statement about denial of counsel to a "suspect." Note the reference to youth, foreigness, lack of translator, non-spontaneity, etc.

It is, of course, possible that the treatment of a suspect might be "proper" under applicable national laws (putting aside ECHR) but illegal under the ECHR, and that's exactly what happened in the Russian case that I cited above. Does this Hellman/ISC language establish an ECHR violation? I think it does.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Does that state an ECHR violation?


No. Amanda Knox was present during a police investigation into a murder rape, not at a tea party.

And anything stated by Hellmann doesn't exist, it was annulled. That includes most of what he ruled regarding the calunnia. The High Court upheld his sentencing on the calunnia, but not his reasoning on it. You have to do better then citing Hellmann.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletion wrote:
My guess is that that list would be longer than the list of people who were jailed or extradited after the ECHR had adjudged the trial to be in violation of Art. 6.


Don't talk about it. Write it.

If any such precedents actually existed, they'd have been all over IIP to pump up the morale of the faithful loooong ago.

I shouldn't worry about her charge running out of time. The ECHR won't rule in her favour anyway.

It's a worthy suggestion and I don't have such a list (yet). The fact remains, though, that the ECtHR frequently states that a trial de novo is required when someone has been convicted in violation of Art. 6. It doesn't make sense to me that these statements are totally ignored and have no effect whatsoever, and it makes even less sense to me that someone who was previously free would be jailed on the basis of a trial that the ECtHR has already decided was illegal. I would think that that would be a very serious treaty violation, if the treaty means anything.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In any case, you seem to keep missing (probably deliberately) the part that Knox was convicted of calunnia as a result of what she wrote whilst alone in her cell, not her interrogation or even her voluntary statement to Mignini. Her written memorial. No lawyer legally needed to be present for that, nor a translator, nor any other kind of special treatment and it is irrelevant what happened previously to her being alone in her cell writing it and then insisting that the police accept it.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:11 pm   Post subject: RE ECHR   

Sigh, here we go again, reposted Original Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:55 am

"I will clarify one thing though. Knox is not appealing her calunnia conviction. She contends that the way in which the conviction was obtained was a violation of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Therefore, if she expects her appeal to be taken seriously, she will have to specify which right was violated, hence my earlier query, why, was she water boarded? :)

So, not only does it look like it's too late to file an appeal, but also, if it is accepted, and she should win, the most that can be enforced is a fine, and that ministers should then work to ensure the upholding the rights in the future.

Why is she and her minions implying it will result in the overturning of ANY conviction?"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletion wrote:
My guess is that that list would be longer than the list of people who were jailed or extradited after the ECHR had adjudged the trial to be in violation of Art. 6.


Don't talk about it. Write it.

If any such precedents actually existed, they'd have been all over IIP to pump up the morale of the faithful loooong ago.

I shouldn't worry about her charge running out of time. The ECHR won't rule in her favour anyway.

It's a worthy suggestion and I don't have such a list (yet). The fact remains, though, that the ECtHR frequently states that a trial de novo is required when someone has been convicted in violation of Art. 6. It doesn't make sense to me that these statements are totally ignored and have no effect whatsoever, and it makes even less sense to me that someone who was previously free would be jailed on the basis of a trial that the ECtHR has already decided was illegal. I would think that that would be a very serious treaty violation, if the treaty means anything.



Worthy? It's a request that you provide proof to support a claim you are making. Right now, we have nothing other then a bald assertion.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Does that state an ECHR violation?


No. Amanda Knox was present during a police investigation into a murder rape, not at a tea party.

And anything stated by Hellmann doesn't exist, it was annulled. That includes most of what he ruled regarding the calunnia. The High Court upheld his sentencing on the calunnia, but not his reasoning on it. You have to do better then citing Hellmann.


They annulled Hellman only on the issue of whether the callunnia was an aggravating factor to the murder. His discussion of callunnia still stands, and you can bet will be read by an ECtHR judge any time now. I guess the argument might be made, in the context of the ECtHR proceeding, that all of that stuff he said isn't really there anymore . . . but I don't think that will be received well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:19 pm   Post subject: MORE ECHR   

Another repost: Original Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:56 am

"Hi, Sherrel, in this particular instance Knox's own words are:

Quote:
The slander conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation in March of 2013 and my appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was filed today.


(Filed Nov. 24, 2013 received Dec.06, 2013)

Now maybe CDV might try again, when the Supreme Court upholds or increases the calunnia sentence and another for the conviction of murder, based on some specious reason or the other. In the end, that will be up to them, and they, are so predictable in their wonky zaniness, are they not?

But my challenge, issued to Ms. Knox today, was to release copies of the application to the public, so they could judge the merits of her case, instead of through spoon fed PR releases. Otherwise, I can obtain my copy, and WILL release it, and if not me, well, reporters on both sides of the Atlantic have been alerted :)"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
In any case, you seem to keep missing (probably deliberately) the part that Knox was convicted of calunnia as a result of what she wrote whilst alone in her cell, not her interrogation or even her voluntary statement to Mignini. Her written memorial. No lawyer legally needed to be present for that, nor a translator, nor any other kind of special treatment and it is irrelevant what happened previously to her being alone in her cell writing it and then insisting that the police accept it.


That's not true. Whenever she was first "suspected," which certainly was before the Memoriale, she was entitled to counsel. She didn't get counsel, and we have a continuing violation of counsel up until the Matteini proceeding. The use against her at trial of any statement obtained during the denial of counsel period is an Art. 6 violation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
They annulled Hellman only on the issue of whether the callunnia was an aggravating factor to the murder. His discussion of callunnia still stands


It was his DISCUSSION that formed the actual basis for his dismissing the aggravating factor of continuation from the calunnia charge! And it was THIS that was rejected by the High Court!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletion wrote:
My guess is that that list would be longer than the list of people who were jailed or extradited after the ECHR had adjudged the trial to be in violation of Art. 6.


Don't talk about it. Write it.

If any such precedents actually existed, they'd have been all over IIP to pump up the morale of the faithful loooong ago.

I shouldn't worry about her charge running out of time. The ECHR won't rule in her favour anyway.

It's a worthy suggestion and I don't have such a list (yet). The fact remains, though, that the ECtHR frequently states that a trial de novo is required when someone has been convicted in violation of Art. 6. It doesn't make sense to me that these statements are totally ignored and have no effect whatsoever, and it makes even less sense to me that someone who was previously free would be jailed on the basis of a trial that the ECtHR has already decided was illegal. I would think that that would be a very serious treaty violation, if the treaty means anything.


Worthy? It's a request that you provide proof to support a claim you are making. Right now, we have nothing other then a bald assertion.


No. You said that the ECtHR can't require a new trial, and I pointed out that they frequently say just that. Now you are saying that no one complies with what the ECtHR says on that point. So, I suggest that we both makes lists and we can compare maybe next Tuesday. Deal?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
They annulled Hellman only on the issue of whether the callunnia was an aggravating factor to the murder. His discussion of callunnia still stands


It was his DISCUSSION that formed the actual basis for his dismissing the aggravating factor of continuation from the calunnia charge! And it was THIS that was rejected by the High Court!


I suppose that reasonable minds may differ. But my point is that the language is going to the ECtHR, and they won't be able to ignore it because it perfectly describes an Art. 6 violation. And, you can't unring the bell.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
In any case, you seem to keep missing (probably deliberately) the part that Knox was convicted of calunnia as a result of what she wrote whilst alone in her cell, not her interrogation or even her voluntary statement to Mignini. Her written memorial. No lawyer legally needed to be present for that, nor a translator, nor any other kind of special treatment and it is irrelevant what happened previously to her being alone in her cell writing it and then insisting that the police accept it.


That's not true. Whenever she was first "suspected," which certainly was before the Memoriale, she was entitled to counsel. She didn't get counsel, and we have a continuing violation of counsel up until the Matteini proceeding. The use against her at trial of any statement obtained during the denial of counsel period is an Art. 6 violation.



No, merely being suspected does not entitle you to a lawyer under Italian law, it only entitles you to one in some fictional country whose law code you've completely made up in your head. In Italy, ones status as a formal suspect must be PROVEN, as in incriminatory evidence must be provided to impart that status. And only once that status requirement has been met, is the presence of a lawyer a legal requirement.

And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Knox was convicted of calunnia on the basis of her written voluntary memorial.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
They annulled Hellman only on the issue of whether the callunnia was an aggravating factor to the murder. His discussion of callunnia still stands


It was his DISCUSSION that formed the actual basis for his dismissing the aggravating factor of continuation from the calunnia charge! And it was THIS that was rejected by the High Court!


I suppose that reasonable minds may differ. But my point is that the language is going to the ECtHR, and they won't be able to ignore it because it perfectly describes an Art. 6 violation. And, you can't unring the bell.


This is about plain fact. Reasoning isn't required, there is no grey area here.

It attempts to claim Art 6. That's all it does. And any look at the actual facts, immediately disproves such nonsense claims. Like the fact that she was convicted of calunnia purely on the basis of her written memorial which in no way can be argued to have breached any element of art 6.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
In any case, you seem to keep missing (probably deliberately) the part that Knox was convicted of calunnia as a result of what she wrote whilst alone in her cell, not her interrogation or even her voluntary statement to Mignini. Her written memorial. No lawyer legally needed to be present for that, nor a translator, nor any other kind of special treatment and it is irrelevant what happened previously to her being alone in her cell writing it and then insisting that the police accept it.


That's not true. Whenever she was first "suspected," which certainly was before the Memoriale, she was entitled to counsel. She didn't get counsel, and we have a continuing violation of counsel up until the Matteini proceeding. The use against her at trial of any statement obtained during the denial of counsel period is an Art. 6 violation.



No, merely being suspected does not entitle you to a lawyer under Italian law, it only entitles you to one in some fictional country whose law code you've completely made up in your head. In Italy, ones status as a formal suspect must be PROVEN, as in incriminatory evidence must be provided to impart that status. And only once that status requirement has been met, is the presence of a lawyer a legal requirement.

And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Knox was convicted of calunnia on the basis of her written voluntary memorial.


A person is entitled to counsel under the ECHR as soon as they are suspected of a crime. Italy signed the ECHR, so that's the law in Italy, too. Italy does have separate laws that govern the right to counsel, but they can't diminish the protections that Italy signed up for under the ECHR.

See here:

Quote:
60. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided from the first time a suspect is questioned by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such a restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during questioning by police without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008).

61. It has not been disputed by either of the parties that on 9 April 2005 the police brought the applicant to a police station because they suspected him of having committed the murders. The Court, for its part, does not find any indication that the authorities did not treat him as a suspect.

62. The Court next observes that while the formal questioning of the applicant was carried out on the next day, 10 April 2005, it was actually on the evening of 9 April 2005 that the police authorities extracted a confession from the applicant.

63. It is therefore established that on 9 April 2005 the applicant was first questioned as a suspect in respect of the murders. However, there is no evidence that he was provided with access to a lawyer on that day.

64. The question therefore is whether the absence of a lawyer was justified by a compelling reason. However, on the facts the Court does not find any compelling reason for the failure to respect the applicant’s right to a lawyer during the first occasion on which he was questioned as a suspect. The Court further notes that the applicant’s initial confession, obtained without a lawyer being present, was used by the courts as supporting evidence of the applicant’s guilt (see paragraphs 17 and 20 above). In these circumstances the applicant’s defence rights were prejudiced irretrievably.

65. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in this respect
.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-114455


Last edited by Diocletian on Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
A person is entitled to counsel under the ECHR as soon as they are suspected of a crime. Italy signed the ECHR, so that's the law in Italy, too. Italy does have separate laws that govern the right to counsel, but they can't diminish the protections that Italy signed up for under the ECHR.


I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
A person is entitled to counsel under the ECHR as soon as they are suspected of a crime. Italy signed the ECHR, so that's the law in Italy, too. Italy does have separate laws that govern the right to counsel, but they can't diminish the protections that Italy signed up for under the ECHR.


I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks.


So you agree that she was a suspect before she got counsel, it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

"Suspicion", in law, in this context, is defined by some form of formalisation of that suspicion, eg, the individual being a) arrested b) placed under caution c) charged d) being made a formal suspect...not one copper merely being suspicious of someone in his own head, or even treating them in a manner that suggests he is suspicious.

Moreover, the ECHR does not overrule national laws, penal codes or courts. European states are not in a state of subordination to the ECHR.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
A person is entitled to counsel under the ECHR as soon as they are suspected of a crime. Italy signed the ECHR, so that's the law in Italy, too. Italy does have separate laws that govern the right to counsel, but they can't diminish the protections that Italy signed up for under the ECHR.


I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks.


So you agree that she was a suspect before she got counsel, it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?


No. She was a suspect once she provided evidence that incriminated herself, in line with Italian law.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
"Suspicion", in law, in this context, is defined by some form of formalisation of that suspicion, eg, the individual being a) arrested b) placed under caution c) charged d) being made a formal suspect...not one copper merely being suspicious of someone in his own head, or even treating them in a manner that suggests he is suspicious.

Moreover, the ECHR does not overrule national laws, penal codes or courts. European states are not in a state of subordination to the ECHR.


It's kind of academic, because Hellmann confirmed by ISC already said that she was a suspect. Anyway, wasn't she a suspect when she placed herself at the scene? They shouldn't thereafter have typed up a paper, had her sign it, and then used it to convict her of a crime. That's not allowed.

In a sense, European states are subordinate to the ECHR, because they have entered into treaty obligations to apply it as the minimum standard of human rights.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?


You seem to have a problem understanding what the legal definition of a suspect, under Italian law, is.

If they are "mere" suspects, then formally under Italian law, they are witnesses. Witnesses have no legal rights. They formally only become suspects when there is evidence against them, and there MUST be evidence against them for them to be made suspects, the contrary would be illegal. Once formally made suspects as a result of evidence, they then gain rights that go with that status...ie, the right to a lawyer. The right to remain silent. The right to lie. Etc,.

This is not a difficult legal concept to grasp.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
A person is entitled to counsel under the ECHR as soon as they are suspected of a crime. Italy signed the ECHR, so that's the law in Italy, too. Italy does have separate laws that govern the right to counsel, but they can't diminish the protections that Italy signed up for under the ECHR.


I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks.


So you agree that she was a suspect before she got counsel, it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?


No. She was a suspect once she provided evidence that incriminated herself, in line with Italian law.


It's an objective test, based on whether the ECtHR thinks that the police had any reason to suspect the witness at the time questioning started or at any time during the questioning. Nobody will care how Italian law defines a "suspect."

If the ECtHR thinks that the cops has reason to suspect her, say before she signed the 1:45 statement, then it's not going to be a defense for the prosecution to say "but we hadn't declared her a suspect yet".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?


You seem to have a problem understanding what the legal definition of a suspect, under Italian law, is.

If they are "mere" suspects, then formally under Italian law, they are witnesses. Witnesses have no legal rights. They formally only become suspects when there is evidence against them, and there MUST be evidence against them for them to be made suspects, the contrary would be illegal. Once formally made suspects as a result of evidence, they then gain rights that go with that status...ie, the right to a lawyer. The right to remain silent. The right to lie. Etc,.

This is not a difficult legal concept to grasp.


I get it. It's just irrelevant because that's not the way the ECtHR works.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
"Suspicion", in law, in this context, is defined by some form of formalisation of that suspicion, eg, the individual being a) arrested b) placed under caution c) charged d) being made a formal suspect...not one copper merely being suspicious of someone in his own head, or even treating them in a manner that suggests he is suspicious.

Moreover, the ECHR does not overrule national laws, penal codes or courts. European states are not in a state of subordination to the ECHR.


It's kind of academic, because Hellmann confirmed by ISC already said that she was a suspect. Anyway, wasn't she a suspect when she placed herself at the scene? They shouldn't thereafter have typed up a paper, had her sign it, and then used it to convict her of a crime. That's not allowed.

In a sense, European states are subordinate to the ECHR, because they have entered into treaty obligations to apply it as the minimum standard of human rights.



No, Hellmann was annulled. When are you FOAKers gonna get it...Hellmann is defunct, his words have no legal standing whatsoever. It's as though, legally, they never existed.

And no, for the umpteenth time, nation states are not subordinate to the ECHR. It appears you seem to think the ECHR is the European equivilent of the US Supreme Court. It is not.

Ergon has already laid out upthread exactly what power and the limit of that power, the ECHR has over national courts and is the essence of the treaty you keep harping about.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?


You seem to have a problem understanding what the legal definition of a suspect, under Italian law, is.

If they are "mere" suspects, then formally under Italian law, they are witnesses. Witnesses have no legal rights. They formally only become suspects when there is evidence against them, and there MUST be evidence against them for them to be made suspects, the contrary would be illegal. Once formally made suspects as a result of evidence, they then gain rights that go with that status...ie, the right to a lawyer. The right to remain silent. The right to lie. Etc,.

This is not a difficult legal concept to grasp.


I get it. It's just irrelevant because that's not the way the ECtHR works.


And you don't get, the ECHR has no actual authority over European courts. And yes, that is the way the ECHR works, you just don't understand how to read law and you think words in law (like "suspicion") carry exactly the same definition as they do in layman's English. They do not.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
"Suspicion", in law, in this context, is defined by some form of formalisation of that suspicion, eg, the individual being a) arrested b) placed under caution c) charged d) being made a formal suspect...not one copper merely being suspicious of someone in his own head, or even treating them in a manner that suggests he is suspicious.

Moreover, the ECHR does not overrule national laws, penal codes or courts. European states are not in a state of subordination to the ECHR.


It's kind of academic, because Hellmann confirmed by ISC already said that she was a suspect. Anyway, wasn't she a suspect when she placed herself at the scene? They shouldn't thereafter have typed up a paper, had her sign it, and then used it to convict her of a crime. That's not allowed.

In a sense, European states are subordinate to the ECHR, because they have entered into treaty obligations to apply it as the minimum standard of human rights.



No, Hellmann was annulled. When are you FOAKers gonna get it...Hellmann is defunct, his words have no legal standing whatsoever. It's as though, legally, they never existed.


Hellman was the final conviction on the issue of callunnia. Nencini didn't adjudicate the issue of whether she was criminally liable for callunnia, so Hellmann stands on that count as the final appeal pre-ISC. Doesn't really matter, though, because she was clearly a suspect prior to signing the 1:45 statement.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?


You seem to have a problem understanding what the legal definition of a suspect, under Italian law, is.

If they are "mere" suspects, then formally under Italian law, they are witnesses. Witnesses have no legal rights. They formally only become suspects when there is evidence against them, and there MUST be evidence against them for them to be made suspects, the contrary would be illegal. Once formally made suspects as a result of evidence, they then gain rights that go with that status...ie, the right to a lawyer. The right to remain silent. The right to lie. Etc,.

This is not a difficult legal concept to grasp.


I get it. It's just irrelevant because that's not the way the ECtHR works.


And you don't get, the ECHR has no actual authority over European courts. And yes, that is the way the ECHR works, you just don't understand how to read law and you think words in law (like "suspicion") carry exactly the same definition as they do in layman's English. They do not.


So what do you think will happen if the ECtHR says that there was a violation of Art. 6?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 297

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE GILL, CONFUSED   

Ergon wrote:
I know about the BBC interview but never looked at it preferring to wait for the book, Michael. Can it be posted here again in the new thread? He's clearly been fed the defense line when he made the interview, but to carry it over into his book without fact checking?

p. 136, 5.4.5: Gill says the Supreme Court reasoning is "not available" (it was posted on ORG last year but it seems he only went to the pro-Knox sites) but will comment on his site when it is. So far, he hasn't.

p. 137.5.5.5: "the purpose of the court is to combine the various parts of the evidence in order to make a decision on the guilt/innocence of the defendants. However, this is outside the scope of the following discussion", then includes "The Death Of Meredith Kercher" as an example of 'miscarriages of justice'.

p. 137, 5.5.5: "Rudy Guede was (and remains) convicted of the murder of Kercher ---- the evidence linking him to the murder is not further discussed here" then helpfully summarizes the evidence on the same page as a footnote :)

P.154, 5.15 Final Remarks: "Recall that the knife item 36 was repackaged in a shoe box that was not DNA free (and it is unknown what it previously contained). There was opportunity for DNA to transfer from the walls of the shoe box to the knife, and vice versa. This important finding by Goray et al. is also highly significant with respect to the conclusion of the Massei report claiming that the distribution of DNA on the knife supported the hypothesis of stabbing motion".

Aside from the howler about the 'shoe box', he's mixing two arguments here, citing (ibid) Goray who in an experiment with the transport of knives in cardboard tubes showed "DNA loss by transfer to the container walls, it was shown that the DNA was redistributed so that the profiles on the blade ended up on the handle and vice versa". Whereas Massei states the placement of sample A on the handle showing Knox's profile on the handle and sample B showing Meredith's profile was proof of the actual murder, Gill misapplies Goray's experiment to claim contamination and further confuse people.

Oh, well. More to come.


I've no idea why someone with Peter Gill's historic reputation would make a fool of himself in this way, but... I've an idea he just got lucky, back in the Eighties. The real author of that first paper on DNA profiling was the genius Sir Alec Jeffries. Gill was an assistant and perhaps pretty much, as Knox supporters falsely describe Patrizia Stefanoni, a 'lab tech' whom Sir Alec kindly and ethically allowed co-author credit on that paper.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 297

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
it's just that you think mere suspects don't have a right to counsel in Italy?


You seem to have a problem understanding what the legal definition of a suspect, under Italian law, is.

If they are "mere" suspects, then formally under Italian law, they are witnesses. Witnesses have no legal rights. They formally only become suspects when there is evidence against them, and there MUST be evidence against them for them to be made suspects, the contrary would be illegal. Once formally made suspects as a result of evidence, they then gain rights that go with that status...ie, the right to a lawyer. The right to remain silent. The right to lie. Etc,.

This is not a difficult legal concept to grasp.


I get it. It's just irrelevant because that's not the way the ECtHR works.


And you don't get, the ECHR has no actual authority over European courts. And yes, that is the way the ECHR works, you just don't understand how to read law and you think words in law (like "suspicion") carry exactly the same definition as they do in layman's English. They do not.


So what do you think will happen if the ECtHR says that there was a violation of Art. 6?


Low five-figure damages. That's all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
It's an objective test, based on whether the ECtHR thinks that the police had any reason to suspect the witness at the time questioning started


Thank you, EXACTLY! Finally, you're starting to understand it. "Any reason" = EVIDENCE. They had no evidence against Knox when they questioned her, Knox did not provide that evidence until late into the interview and once she provided it, they then had "reason" to suspect her and as a result, she was formally made a suspect and her questioning was halted (1:45 pm). This agrees fully with the legal requirement of both Italian law and the ECHR.

I'm glad we can now put that to bed.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:

Low five-figure damages. That's all.


Low five-figure damages sounds about right (would be 4 figures, except that she has done jail time over this already), but what about the other part where the ECtHR says that the victim of the HR violation gets a trial de novo? How does that play out? Italy just ignores it? What impact would that have on the murder trial with which callunia has been intertwined? What about extradition?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Hellman was the final conviction on the issue of callunnia. Nencini didn't adjudicate the issue of whether she was criminally liable for callunnia, so Hellmann stands on that count as the final appeal pre-ISC. Doesn't really matter, though, because she was clearly a suspect prior to signing the 1:45 statement


No, he wasn't. Nencini was. Nencini was tasked by the High Court to re-examine the calunnia in regard to its aggravating factor of continuation.

And no, Knox was not a suspect prior to the 1:45 statement, since as you have agreed with your own words, there was no evidence, eg "no reason", to suspect her prior to that interview.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
It's an objective test, based on whether the ECtHR thinks that the police had any reason to suspect the witness at the time questioning started


Thank you, EXACTLY! Finally, you're starting to understand it. "Any reason" = EVIDENCE. They had no evidence against Knox when they questioned her, Knox did not provide that evidence until late into the interview and once she provided it, they then had "reason" to suspect her and as a result, she was formally made a suspect and her questioning was halted (1:45 pm). This agrees fully with the legal requirement of both Italian law and the ECHR.


But wait a minute. If she wasn't a suspect before the interview started, and then she said something that made her a suspect, then why did they proceed to type up a statement and ask her to sign before halting the interview? Her lawyer should have reviewed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:31 pm   Post subject: KNOX APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT   

Had a look at the summary of Knox's appeal to the Supreme Court on the Wrongful Convictions site. Y'all might want to look at this ruling on Helmann Judicial Review Limits Supreme Court

Background on the limits of the power of judicial review of this court

Quote:
1.1 - The collection (body) of evidence collected and processed in the two sets of proceedings on the murder of the young British student is undoubtedly circumstantial in nature -- since no one directly saw or recorded it, there is no descritpion of how the crime was carried out. This does not mean that so-called circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, because evidence is qualified by its content and degree of accuracy. What matters is the logical procedure, through which, from certain premises, affirms the existence of additional facts "to the standard of rules of probability with reference to a possible, likely connection of events, whose sequence and recurrence can be verified according to the rules of common experience" (section 1 civ. 13.11.1996, no 9961) [Sez. Un. Civ. 13.11.1996, n.9961]: as has been cited in a recent ruling of this Court (section 1, 20.12.2011, no 47250), article 192 c2 introduced the civil trial standard regarding those elements which cannot be recognised as having the same persuasive value as evidence.

Living law has developed strong valuation parameters in terms of absolute uniformity of adversarial procedure, which they send to the trial court to make a double operation: First, he is obliged to proceed with the evaluation of the piece of evidence on its own to establish its probative value. Second, it is necessary to take a global view of all the pieces of evidence, in order to determine whether the margins of ambiguity possessed by each one (if there were absolutely no ambiguities we would be dealing with proof instead of evidence) can be overcome by collating them into a single unified view so as to allow the attribution of the crime to the person(s) accused, on the basis of the totality of facts which, fitting the pieces together without gaps or leaps or logic, necessarily allow no other conclusion. (section 1, 9.6.2010, no 30448, section 1, 4.2.1992, no 6682).

1.2 - The purview of this Court on the logical process followed that allows us to come to the judgment of attribution of the crime with the use of inferences or rules of experience consists requires consideration of whether the lower court considered all the relevant information present in the file, thus respecting the rule of completeness, whether the conclusions reached can be said to be consistent with the evidence acquired, and whether these conclusions are themselves founded on inferential criteria and logical deductions that are above criticism from the perspective of respecting the principles of non-contradiction and of logical consistency. The object of the Supreme Court judges' scrutiny is therefore the probative reasoning, and accordingly, the methods used to assess the evidence, the higher court being disallowed from evaluating the clues directly. It has been underlined by article 606, c 1, letter e of the Criminal Procedure Code that the court is precluded from re-evaluation of the evidence but it is not hampered in any way to verify if the assessment of that evidence followed logical criteria "whether, that is, the criteria of inference used by the court judge can be held to be plausible, or whether different ones can be allowed, capable of leading to different solutions which are equally plausible" (Section IV , 12.11.2009 , n. 48320)

It has been said that this evaluative task had already been entrusted to the Supreme Court prior to its codification in sec. e of art 606 of the CPC, when the flaw of misinterpretation of evidence was placed under the category of a faulty explanation (motivation). Under this construct the Court may assess the trial records's explanatory value if the evidence evaluated undermines the conclusion reached.

1.3 - Therefore, following these valuation parameters and in strict compliance with the route market by legislation and which does not allow tresspassing, this Court has conducted its examination of the multiple violations (in Hellmann) raised by the PG and the Civil Parties, and has reached the firm conclusion that the Hellmann judgement suffers from an incorrect assessment of all the available evidence, having inadequately connected these pieces of evidence, having drawn conclusions sometimes contradicted by the evidence, in open violation of the principle that an assessment cannot be complete if it is self-contradictory or shows that the court has overlooked signficant findings by the first court, without adequate justification for having done so. In addition, the contested judgment presents a fragmented and atomistic evaluation of the evidence, considered one-by-one and rejected in their potential demonstration of something larger, without a broader and more complete evaluative phase. The parcelling-out (compartmentalization) of the individual elements weakened their value, since this action was inevitably followed with a disjointed evaluation of these items, ignoring the increased value these items assume when evaluated in concert with each other.

This lack of a comprehensive examination prevented the gaps inherent in circumstantial evidence from being filled by other elements and thus overcoming the limitations of any one item alone to demonstrate, by itself, the existence of a fact, since the set taken together under rigorous logical methodology, can take on a meaningful and unambiguous demonstrative meaning that is as valuable as direct proof.


More to follow about other aspects, but on quick reading it appears that Knox is slyly trying to reintroduce Helmann, that since he acquitted her, the Florence court should have reconsidered ALL requests for testing etc. In other words, send back for new appeal.

Read above, and, good luck with that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SqueakEMouse


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:25 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian

Sorry if I'm butting into the argument but I'm curious and perplexed about why you are spending so much time and effort arguing up the chances of the ECHR appeal. It's an appeal that most people accept was made as a publicity stunt, the latest in a long line of attempts to grab a sympathetic and dramatic headline and timed to bury the latest bad news. It's a worn PR trick. Hence the appointment of Dalla Vedova to be her lawyer for it and not some high profile (and high cost) London firm (which seemed to disappoint you). It's not worth the outlay on bigwig lawyers because it really has no merit.

You seem to be convincing yourself through your own rhetoric. You want it to be true so it becomes true in your own mind. If Knox, her family, her PR firm and her lawyers really thought it was a good prospect, let alone a dead cert, they would be throwing every possible resource at it and making their cast iron case publicly known. They're not! They know it's a dead duck. It's on the level of 'briefing congress' , muttering about State Department involvement and the glorious White House petition; a way of attempting to garner support via the press with the impression that the 'real' powers that be will intervene in her favour and a morale booster for the foot soldiers.

The trouble with such morale boosters is that the short term morale lift is undermined by the long term failure of each of these efforts. The result is a slow disillusionment for the majority of supporters and a hunkering down attitude for the hard core. It's a 'Hitler's Bunker' mentality. The PR strategy has taken you down this road and it's only a handful of supporters left. You are roughly half way through the time it takes for the ECHR to blow a big raspberry at Knox and her PR inspired stunt. Why not just wait for the result and save yourself the heartache and effort? Nobody else takes it seriously the way you do.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
But wait a minute. If she wasn't a suspect before the interview started, and then she said something that made her a suspect, then why did they proceed to type up a statement and ask her to sign before halting the interview? Her lawyer should have reviewed.


Because the police are permitted to clarify and take down what the evidence "is" for making her suspect before doing so. It is, in fact, a requirement. If they do not record it, then they don't actually have the evidence to make her a suspect, do they? The evidence must be formalised, that is put down in writing and signed, in order to make it legal.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

@ Diocletian

I wonder what Pakshayev was arrested for. Anyway -

1. Unlike Pakshayev Knox was not under arrest when she accused Lumumba.

2 Arrest involves the detention of an individual as a suspect in the commission of an offence. The curtailment of the suspect's liberty is of course a stressful factor and this is one reason why the detainee has to be immediately informed of his rights whilst in detention. Another, of course, is the likelihood that the detainee will be questioned as a suspect. But to repeat, Knox was not under arrest as she was being interviewed as a witness (informed of the facts).

3. Peculiarly it seems that (on your summation) Russian law requires a reading aloud (in addition to written notification, which written notification was given) of the detainee's rights as a mandatory part of the detention process. Perhaps this is because of a high rate of illiteracy in Russia? I don't know. It certainly doesn't apply in the UK but would if the detainee said he couldn't read, didn't understand the language or had an understanding problem. In the latter case a social worker or translator as appropriate would be called in. I get the impression that the ECHR ruling is largely about the absence/timing of this particular mandatory requirement as you do not refer to any other proven breach of established requirements. It goes without saying that all requirements have to be satisfied immediately upon an arrest or, if that is not practical, within a reasonable time and certainly before the detainee is questioned.

4. In order for any individual, whether as a witness or a suspect, to effectively incriminate himself during questioning it is usually the case that he sign a statement or that the interview was recorded on tape. As we know Knox was not recorded on tape nor had a lawyer present during the interview. When she signed her first statement she was asked whether she required a lawyer and she declined. However this is all apples and oranges because in relation to the calunnia offence she didn't incriminate herself so much as commit a criminal offence which offence she then repeated and verified having declined the offer of a lawyer. Is it surprising that the ISC ruled that her statements were admissable in evidence against her on the calunnia charge?

5. Somewhere above you state that the ISC agreed with Hellman on some point and then you quote a section as if that was what the ISC said. This is rubbish. The quoted section looks like a resume of what Hellman said. Well it may be in the ruling somewhere as such a resume but I have had a look at the ISC conclusions and there is nothing there to substantiate your observation.

6. Beware digging out precedent cases and using them to support your arguments unless you are a trained lawyer and even lawyers are susceptible to misunderstanding their usefullness. At the end of the day it is the judge who will determine the relevance of a precedent to the case he is considering.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

SqueakEMouse wrote:
Diocletian

Sorry if I'm butting into the argument but I'm curious and perplexed about why you are spending so much time and effort arguing up the chances of the ECHR appeal. It's an appeal that most people accept was made as a publicity stunt, the latest in a long line of attempts to grab a sympathetic and dramatic headline and timed to bury the latest bad news. It's a worn PR trick. Hence the appointment of Dalla Vedova to be her lawyer for it and not some high profile (and high cost) London firm (which seemed to disappoint you). It's not worth the outlay on bigwig lawyers because it really has no merit.

You seem to be convincing yourself through your own rhetoric. You want it to be true so it becomes true in your own mind. If Knox, her family, her PR firm and her lawyers really thought it was a good prospect, let alone a dead cert, they would be throwing every possible resource at it and making their cast iron case publicly known. They're not! They know it's a dead duck. It's on the level of 'briefing congress' , muttering about State Department involvement and the glorious White House petition; a way of attempting to garner support via the press with the impression that the 'real' powers that be will intervene in her favour and a morale booster for the foot soldiers.

The trouble with such morale boosters is that the short term morale lift is undermined by the long term failure of each of these efforts. The result is a slow disillusionment for the majority of supporters and a hunkering down attitude for the hard core. It's a 'Hitler's Bunker' mentality. The PR strategy has taken you down this road and it's only a handful of supporters left. You are roughly half way through the time it takes for the ECHR to blow a big raspberry at Knox and her PR inspired stunt. Why not just wait for the result and save yourself the heartache and effort? Nobody else takes it seriously the way you do.


Well, this just seems interesting to me, so off I go.

I don't agree that there necessarily needs to be a PR aspect to the ECHR process. It's just not the same dynamic that we saw in Italy with the media. So, I expect them to remain quiet on the ECHR front, and I don't read anything into that other than the fact that we are in a different venue with a different relationship to the press.

So, she might get a big raspberry or she might not, but if she doesn't, then I like understanding the issues.

Also, I'm not susceptible to PR.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 297

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
hugo wrote:

Low five-figure damages. That's all.


Low five-figure damages sounds about right (would be 4 figures, except that she has done jail time over this already), but what about the other part where the ECtHR says that the victim of the HR violation gets a trial de novo? How does that play out? Italy just ignores it? What impact would that have on the murder trial with which callunia has been intertwined? What about extradition?


The ECHR cannot order a new trial. It doesn't work like that. The first thing the ECHR will tell you, if you speak to them, is that they are not a court of appeal and they cannot and do not overturn the verdicts of the domestic courts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
I don't agree that there necessarily needs to be a PR aspect to the ECHR process.


That's exactly what it is and all it is, in this case. It is nothing more, then Knox attempting to publicly have the last word (which is PR) after having been convicted. That's it.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hugo wrote:
The ECHR cannot order a new trial. It doesn't work like that. The first thing the ECHR will tell you, if you speak to them, is that they are not a court of appeal and they cannot and do not overturn the verdicts of the domestic courts.


I've been telling him that all evening. He seems to think the ECHR is some sort of US Supreme Court equivalent that can overrule, reverse, adjust or annul the rulings of member state courts.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jape wrote:
@ Diocletian

I wonder what Pakshayev was arrested for. Anyway -

1. Unlike Pakshayev Knox was not under arrest when she accused Lumumba.

2 Arrest involves the detention of an individual as a suspect in the commission of an offence. The curtailment of the suspect's liberty is of course a stressful factor and this is one reason why the detainee has to be immediately informed of his rights whilst in detention. Another, of course, is the likelihood that the detainee will be questioned as a suspect. But to repeat, Knox was not under arrest as she was being interviewed as a witness (informed of the facts).

3. Peculiarly it seems that (on your summation) Russian law requires a reading aloud (in addition to written notification, which written notification was given) of the detainee's rights as a mandatory part of the detention process. Perhaps this is because of a high rate of illiteracy in Russia? I don't know. It certainly doesn't apply in the UK but would if the detainee said he couldn't read, didn't understand the language or had an understanding problem. In the latter case a social worker or translator as appropriate would be called in. I get the impression that the ECHR ruling is largely about the absence/timing of this particular mandatory requirement as you do not refer to any other proven breach of established requirements. It goes without saying that all requirements have to be satisfied immediately upon an arrest or, if that is not practical, within a reasonable time and certainly before the detainee is questioned.


Arrest can be but isn't always what triggers the right to counsel. Being a suspect does, too. How about this, where the suspect was arrested after making the statements:

Quote:
58. It has not been disputed by the parties that on 20 April 2005 the police brought the applicant to the police station because they had suspected him of having committed the murder. Indeed, the statements collected by the police from various interviewees earlier that day had thrown a strong suspicion on the applicant. This suspicion was reinforced after V. had made his own statements (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). Accordingly, the Court finds it established that at the relevant time the police treated the applicant as a suspect (contrast Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 54, 19 January 2012).


AFANASYEV V. UKRAINE (15 November 2012) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-114458

jape wrote:
4. In order for any individual, whether as a witness or a suspect, to effectively incriminate himself during questioning it is usually the case that he sign a statement or that the interview was recorded on tape. As we know Knox was not recorded on tape nor had a lawyer present during the interview. When she signed her first statement she was asked whether she required a lawyer and she declined. However this is all apples and oranges because in relation to the calunnia offence she didn't incriminate herself so much as commit a criminal offence which offence she then repeated and verified having declined the offer of a lawyer. Is it surprising that the ISC ruled that her statements were admissable in evidence against her on the calunnia charge?


I think you're saying that there was a voluntary waiver of the right to counsel. Among other things, the prosecution would bear the burden of showing this, and I don't think it's even close, but I suppose that could be an issue for discussion.

jape wrote:
5. Somewhere above you state that the ISC agreed with Hellman on some point and then you quote a section as if that was what the ISC said. This is rubbish. The quoted section looks like a resume of what Hellman said. Well it may be in the ruling somewhere as such a resume but I have had a look at the ISC conclusions and there is nothing there to substantiate your observation.


It's from Hellman's opinion (at least the translation that I have access to). My point is that the Hellmann determination of criminal liability for callunia is the "final word" (substantively) on the issue of Callunnia, and I don't think that they can have it both ways in the sense that the Hellmann conviction stands but the reasoning for the conviction doesn't stand. I think that that exact language will be put in front of the ECtHR and it will be very difficult to wave away.

jape wrote:
6. Beware digging out precedent cases and using them to support your arguments unless you are a trained lawyer and even lawyers are susceptible to misunderstanding their usefullness. At the end of the day it is the judge who will determine the relevance of a precedent to the case he is considering.


Yes, the judge will decide. Lawyers speak in forked tongues.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I'll just say to finish, we are not the Federal States of Europe yet, not yet. Member states are still very much determined to hang on to their sovereignty and as such, the ECHR treaty is actually very weak and is deliberately so for this reason.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Arrest can be but isn't always what triggers the right to counsel. Being a suspect does, too. How about this, where the suspect was arrested after making the statements:


Sigh...no it doesn't, not your definition of a suspect.

The right to council is in response to "reasonable" suspicion by law enforcement, "reasonable" being defined by the presence of evidence against you.

Let's keep it simple, this is the essence. If there is evidence against you, then you have the legal right to a lawyer. If there isn't, then you do not.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
hugo wrote:

Low five-figure damages. That's all.


Low five-figure damages sounds about right (would be 4 figures, except that she has done jail time over this already), but what about the other part where the ECtHR says that the victim of the HR violation gets a trial de novo? How does that play out? Italy just ignores it? What impact would that have on the murder trial with which callunia has been intertwined? What about extradition?


The ECHR cannot order a new trial. It doesn't work like that. The first thing the ECHR will tell you, if you speak to them, is that they are not a court of appeal and they cannot and do not overturn the verdicts of the domestic courts.


I guess they might say that. But then they would write an opinion and say this:

"39. The Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005‑IV, and Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 112, 2 November 2010). The Court notes, in that connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see paragraph 17 above)."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
hugo wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
hugo wrote:

Low five-figure damages. That's all.


Low five-figure damages sounds about right (would be 4 figures, except that she has done jail time over this already), but what about the other part where the ECtHR says that the victim of the HR violation gets a trial de novo? How does that play out? Italy just ignores it? What impact would that have on the murder trial with which callunia has been intertwined? What about extradition?


The ECHR cannot order a new trial. It doesn't work like that. The first thing the ECHR will tell you, if you speak to them, is that they are not a court of appeal and they cannot and do not overturn the verdicts of the domestic courts.


I guess they might say that. But then they would write an opinion and say this:

"39. The Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005‑IV, and Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 112, 2 November 2010). The Court notes, in that connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see paragraph 17 above)."



They can say what they like. It's a fine.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
It's from Hellman's opinion (at least the translation that I have access to). My point is that the Hellmann determination of criminal liability for callunia is the "final word" (substantively) on the issue of Callunnia, and I don't think that they can have it both ways in the sense that the Hellmann conviction stands but the reasoning for the conviction doesn't stand. I think that that exact language will be put in front of the ECtHR and it will be very difficult to wave away.


No, it is not. His "word" was erased (anulled), only his sentence was kept intact. The last legal word of reasoning is Nencini's and the High Court's.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Arrest can be but isn't always what triggers the right to counsel. Being a suspect does, too. How about this, where the suspect was arrested after making the statements:


Sigh...no it doesn't, not your definition of a suspect.

The right to council is in response to "reasonable" suspicion by law enforcement, "reasonable" being defined by the presence of evidence against you.

Let's keep it simple, this is the essence. If there is evidence against you, then you have the legal right to a lawyer. If there isn't, then you do not.


OK. Then let's get into "evidence". What evidence is mentioned in the arrest warrant?

1. Sollecito revoked alibi
2. Knox's phone turned inactive at 8:42
3. Text to PL
4. Placed herself at the scene of the crime

All of this "evidence" existed before she was called into the room for questioning, except for placing herself at the scene, which existed before she signed the 1:45 statement. So, she was a suspect before they started questioning her, and certainly before she signed the 1:45 statement.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It existed... but they found out about it from her. Oh, and good ole RS.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Horribly slow day at JREF I guess. Came to play on words with us.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Arrest can be but isn't always what triggers the right to counsel. Being a suspect does, too. How about this, where the suspect was arrested after making the statements:


Sigh...no it doesn't, not your definition of a suspect.

The right to council is in response to "reasonable" suspicion by law enforcement, "reasonable" being defined by the presence of evidence against you.

Let's keep it simple, this is the essence. If there is evidence against you, then you have the legal right to a lawyer. If there isn't, then you do not.


OK. Then let's get into "evidence". What evidence is mentioned in the arrest warrant?

1. Sollecito revoked alibi
2. Knox's phone turned inactive at 8:42
3. Text to PL
4. Placed herself at the scene of the crime

All of this "evidence" existed before she was called into the room for questioning, except for placing herself at the scene, which existed before she signed the 1:45 statement. So, she was a suspect before they started questioning her, and certainly before she signed the 1:45 statement.


Lying to police as a witness in the context of a serious criminal investigation is a crime. The fact that in combination to that he also had no alibi plus the fact Knox wouldn't exclude him from also being present at the cottage.

A revoked alibi is not evidence that she had a role in the crime, it is evidence only that she had no alibi. Not having an alibi, by itself, is not evidence. Certainly not enough to make someone a suspect.

Ditto Knox's phone turning inactive at 8:42.

Ditto text to PL. But it did require an explanation, for which there may have been a perfectly innocent explanation, which the police rightly offered her the chance to explain.

It was her placing herself at the cottage whilst Meredith was being attacked, that provided the evidence to formally make her a suspect.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

(( OT OT ))

(or maybe not)

Just one simple question can identify narcissistic people

14:00, Psychology & Psychiatry



Scientists have developed and validated a new method to identify which people are narcissistic: just ask them.

In a series of 11 experiments involving more than 2,200 people of all ages, the researchers found they could reliably identify narcissistic people by asking them this exact question (including the note):

To what extent do you agree with this statement: "I am a narcissist." (Note: The word "narcissist" means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.)

Participants rated themselves on a scale of 1 (not very true of me) to 7 (very true of me).

(How narcissistic are you? Take the test here.)

Results showed that people's answer to this question lined up very closely with several other validated measures of narcissism, including the widely used Narcissistic Personality Inventory.

The difference is that this new survey – which the researchers call the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS) – has one question, while the NPI has 40 questions to answer.

"People who are willing to admit they are more narcissistic than others probably actually are more narcissistic," said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and a professor of communication and psychology at The Ohio State University.

"People who are narcissists are almost proud of the fact. You can ask them directly because they don't see narcissism as a negative quality – they believe they are superior to other people and are fine with saying that publicly."

Bushman conducted the study with Sara Konrath of the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy (formerly of the University of Michigan) and Brian Meier of Gettysburg College. Their results appear in the journal PLOS ONE.

Understanding narcissism has many implications for society that extend beyond the impact on the individual narcissist's life, Konrath said.

"For example, narcissistic people have low empathy, and empathy is one key motivator of philanthropic behavior such as donating money or time to organizations."

"Overall, narcissism is problematic for both individuals and society. Those who think they are already great don't try to improve themselves," Bushman said.

"And narcissism is bad for society because people who are only thinking of themselves and their own interests are less helpful to others."

Bushman emphasized that SINS shouldn't be seen a replacement for the longer narcissism questionnaires. The NPI and other instruments can provide more information to researchers, such as which form of narcissism someone has.

"But our single-item scale can be useful for long surveys in which researchers are concerned about people getting fatigued or distracted while answering questions and possibly even dropping out before they are done," Bushman said.

He noted that if it takes a person 20 seconds to answer the single question in the SINS measure, it would take him or her 13.3 minutes to answer the 40-question NPI.


For complete article: PHYSORG

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:46 pm   Post subject: MORE MORE ECHR   

Then: Snark From Annella Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:13 pm

Quote:
FOA supporter “Annella”, responded to my request on Twitter to Knox to provide a copy of her recourse to the ECHR, saying 'it wasn’t anyone’s business'.

Wow, the entitlement, transfers. Surely, the public would like to know? Many speculated she was making it up, and couldn’t believe she actually filed an application. I set the record straight, and they, as always, deflect.

We’ll find out any way, Ms. Knox. So do the brave thing, please release the document.


Now: More Snark From Annella

Annella ‏@Annella 12:26 AM - 5 Aug 2014
Quote:
Someone PLEASE tell the yobbo #popper at .org that #amandaknox's appeal to the ECoHR WAS accepted/filed. Please. :)


So instead of Knox releasing the appeal to ECHR, we get surrogates telling us via Twitter it's been accepted, and Diolectian here on FOAKER Tuesday, rabbiting on about a process that won't make a meaningful difference to the case.

Sorry, Amanda Knox, unless we hear from you, it doesn't count. Yawn.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
Arrest can be but isn't always what triggers the right to counsel. Being a suspect does, too. How about this, where the suspect was arrested after making the statements:


Sigh...no it doesn't, not your definition of a suspect.

The right to council is in response to "reasonable" suspicion by law enforcement, "reasonable" being defined by the presence of evidence against you.

Let's keep it simple, this is the essence. If there is evidence against you, then you have the legal right to a lawyer. If there isn't, then you do not.


OK. Then let's get into "evidence". What evidence is mentioned in the arrest warrant?

1. Sollecito revoked alibi
2. Knox's phone turned inactive at 8:42
3. Text to PL
4. Placed herself at the scene of the crime

All of this "evidence" existed before she was called into the room for questioning, except for placing herself at the scene, which existed before she signed the 1:45 statement. So, she was a suspect before they started questioning her, and certainly before she signed the 1:45 statement.


Lying to police as a witness in the context of a serious criminal investigation is a crime. The fact that in combination to that he also had no alibi plus the fact Knox wouldn't exclude him from also being present at the cottage.

A revoked alibi is not evidence that she had a role in the crime, it is evidence only that she had no alibi. Not having an alibi, by itself, is not evidence. Certainly not enough to make someone a suspect.

Ditto Knox's phone turning inactive at 8:42.

Ditto text to PL. But it did require an explanation, for which there may have been a perfectly innocent explanation, which the police rightly offered her the chance to explain.


Well, Mignini thought that those things were good enough to put down in the arrest warrant.

Michael wrote:
It was her placing herself at the cottage whilst Meredith was being attacked, that provided the evidence to formally make her a suspect.


OK. And that happened before the cops typed up the statement. So she should have had a lawyer to review the statement with before signing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

O Dio mio... yawn

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Would YOU have needed a lawyer at that point if innocent?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The reality, regarding Knox's appeal to the ECHR being successful, either potentially or in real effect, is: I'll believe it when I see it.

Until that time and not a second before, it's all so much hot air. One may as well believe the moon is made of green cheese. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian wrote:
Well, Mignini thought that those things were good enough to put down in the arrest warrant.


Yes, in combination with everything else, not individually. It took her placing herself at the cottage to cement the evidence required to make her a formal suspect and later, under arrest. The fact is, they gave her the option to respond to the "potential" clues of guilt (as they were only potential at that stage, to which she could have provided an innocent explanation. She did not. She then cemented them as evidence by placing herself at the cottage.

She could have said that the text message to Patrick was simply to acknowledge his informing her that she wasn't required to go to work, then it wouldn't have been considered as evidence against her. She didn't, she instead responded by saying that it was Patrick that was responsible for killing Meredith. She could have responded to Sollecito dropping her alibi, that she instead went to a friends house (which the police of course would then have needed to verify), she didn't, she claimed she went to the cottage. They gave her the opportunity to explain potential evidence against her first, which they are obliged to do. Instead of offering innocent explanations, she incriminated herself leaving the police with no option but to formally make her a suspect.

The evidence one uses to make someone a suspect must have substance.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

@ Diocletian

You missed this bit -

"However this is all apples and oranges because in relation to the calunnia offence she didn't incriminate herself so much as commit a criminal offence which offence she then repeated and verified having declined the offer of a lawyer. Is it surprising that the ISC ruled that her statements were admissable in evidence against her on the calunnia charge?"

What gives anyone the right whether innocent or guilty, suspect or witness, to commit an offence under questioning by the police, the offence being basically to accuse as a witness an innocent person of murder? I only threw in the bit about declining representation because in fact she did as is evidenced by everyone who was present apart from Knox. I could just as easily have omitted this and it wouldn't make any difference.

I am inclined to accept that Knox should have been treated as a suspect for the purpose of the interview we are discussing. She was already borderline by virtue of the staged break - in but the withdrawal of her alibi by Sollecito would undoubtedly make her so.

This makes no difference however to the callunnia offence. OK, so she might not have committed the offence with a lawyer present. How you so wish this were so. Oswald might not have assassinated Kennedy if he had been disturbed on the 5th floor of the Depository. These are just might-have-beens but in neither case were anybody's human rights affected other than Lumumba's and Kennedy's.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian, I think at this stage we require you to get back to us when you have a list of cases where ECHR overturned a national court decision or ordered a new trial. Until then, and since as I pointed out we have no confirmation ECHR accepted the appeal, you're OT. Desist.

Similarly, you are arguing evidence at the first trial. The evidence phase is over. Knox hasn't even provided a translation of her appeal, but I will accept the summary. Do you have any argument to make why you think she'll be successful at the Supreme Court?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Diocletian, I think at this stage we require you to get back to us when you have a list of cases where ECHR overturned a national court decision or ordered a new trial. Until then, and since as I pointed out we have no confirmation ECHR accepted the appeal, you're OT. Desist.

Similarly, you are arguing evidence at the first trial. The evidence phase is over. Knox hasn't even provided a translation of her appeal, but I will accept the summary. Do you have any argument to make why you think she'll be successful at the Supreme Court?


Sure. Just need to respond to Jape's question and then I'll turn into a pumpkin.


Note
Just a Note.
~ Don't be getting smart with an Admin. You'll find that your stay will be cut very short. We're very tired, so we won't be dicking around today.~
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Diocletian


Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:43 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jape wrote:
@ Diocletian

You missed this bit -

"However this is all apples and oranges because in relation to the calunnia offence she didn't incriminate herself so much as commit a criminal offence which offence she then repeated and verified having declined the offer of a lawyer. Is it surprising that the ISC ruled that her statements were admissable in evidence against her on the calunnia charge?"

What gives anyone the right whether innocent or guilty, suspect or witness, to commit an offence under questioning by the police, the offence being basically to accuse as a witness an innocent person of murder? I only threw in the bit about declining representation because in fact she did as is evidenced by everyone who was present apart from Knox. I could just as easily have omitted this and it wouldn't make any difference.

I am inclined to accept that Knox should have been treated as a suspect for the purpose of the interview we are discussing. She was already borderline by virtue of the staged break - in but the withdrawal of her alibi by Sollecito would undoubtedly make her so.

This makes no difference however to the callunnia offence. OK, so she might not have committed the offence with a lawyer present. How you so wish this were so. Oswald might not have assassinated Kennedy if he had been disturbed on the 5th floor of the Depository. These are just might-have-beens but in neither case were anybody's human rights affected other than Lumumba's and Kennedy's.


Of course she didn't have justification to commit a crime (unless she was compelled or entrapped, but that's another discussion).

But, status as suspect does give the person a right to a lawyer in order to assure the right to fair trial as guaranteed under Art. 6, and if that right is violated, then nothing that the person says can be used to convict the person of a crime or we have a violation of Art. 6 (that's how the ECtHR plays it). I think that you allude to one of the reasons for the right to a lawyer, which is to make sure that the defendants' rights (including the right to silence) are respected during the course of the interview. It might or might not have been the case that she would have accused Lumumba if she had a lawyer (I doubt that she would have for the simple reason that her lawyer would have told her to shut up), but her accusation of Lumumba in the absence of a lawyer can't be used to her prejudice or it violates her right to a fair trial under Art. 6.

So, am I surprised that her statements were allowed as evidence of callunnia? I do not believe that she be convicted of a crime on the basis of those statements because they were made at a time when she was a suspect deprived of counsel, and the conviction is thus a violation of Art. 6.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Diocletian ~

For the millionth time, her status wasn't a suspect when she accused Patrick Lumumba, she was a witness.

Perhaps you think that simply repeating the same argument using different words will somehow make it valid. I disagree, I call it repetition. It's boring and incidentally, is against PMF rules *. Either change the record or get out.


* 20. Repetition. Please avoid it. There is a difference between recapping for purposes of reminding and revision. Endlessly repeating your opinion for example, it's boring and a waste of web space.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Didn't the lawyers tell her to shut up later on like with accusing the police of hitting her.
How did that go???

Which lawyer told her to wear that stupid shirt in court?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Was Knox ever "denied access to legal assistance" ?
Was she not offered it and then declined?

Art 6 ain't working for knox.

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 297

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Even if the ECHR took the case on, and even if they were to find that the right to counsel under Art.6 kicked in as soon as Sollecito withdrew Knox's alibi (which would be contentious of them), and even if they found that Knox was denied counsel in any meaningful sense (as Magee actually was, under special Northern Ireland counter-terrorist rules, in Magee v UK, and the judgement still made no difference to his conviction), they'd at best award her about 10,000 euros towards legal costs.

Knox is someone who committed a serious crime -- falsely accusing an innocent man of murder -- and is trying to blame the police for it. The ECHR, ever since it stopped convening as-and-when and set itself up as a permanent establishment, has tended to act like all bureaucracies and seeks to empire-build and expand its remit. It's become a bit of a nuisance, and the UK has lately threatened to resile from the European Convention if the Strasbourg judges (some of them Russian, for heaven's sake) carry on the way they're going. But the ECHR still isn't going to absolve Knox of the crime she committed, of her own volition, for self-interested and self-motivated reasons. They can't, and they won't.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And, this isn't an invitation to Diocletian, but addressed to the whole board. She was convicted of calunnia based on her voluntary, written memorial, not her 1:45 or 5:45. All arguments referencing the earlier times are moot.

Until we get confirmation ECHR has accepted it, and it's been forwarded to Italy, suggest we focus on Rome. She's making the same false arguments in her appeal summary. Her weak defense fits the conventional definition of Idiocy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

DoctorRadias wrote:
Was Knox ever "denied access to legal assistance" ?
Was she not offered it and then declined?

Art 6 ain't working for knox.


Exactly. It appears some would retrospectively like to deny Knox her legal right to wave the right to a lawyer, which she exercised. It was a bad idea for her to do that, but just because it was a bad idea it does not translate into her rights being abused by the ILE.

When are the FOAKers ever going to allow Knox to take any responsibility for any of her own actions?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
And, this isn't an invitation to Diocletian, but addressed to the whole board. She was convicted of calunnia based on her voluntary, written memorial, not her 1:45 or 5:45. All arguments referencing the earlier times are moot.


Diocletian likes to constantly ignore that cold hard fact.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Just to say, Diocletian's argument seems to be that had she had a lawyer present, then he would have prevented her from committing the crime. Therefore, the ILE by not providing Knox with a lawyer, are responsible for her committing the crime and she should be considered innocent.

Of course, this argument is a complete fallacy. The fact is she committed a crime. It doesn't matter that a lawyer may have stopped her, she did it. The absence of lawyer makes her no less responsible for the crime she committed. And it wasn't an accident, her calunnia was elaborate and it was quite deliberate. I'm sure many criminals could say in all honesty, that they would never have committed their crime had their lawyer been present at the time to tell them it was a bad idea. It doesn't absolve them of what they did.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It will be terribly ironic if, contrasting their behaviors, Raffaele Sollecito gets probation and out of prison a whole lot sooner than Amanda Knox.

But he'll have to apologize for his ill written book first, he's already been called before the investigative judge :)

Didn't she write a book too?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Well, he will be out sooner, he has a shorter sentence then Knox. And she's still facing another calunnia trial, so her final sentence may be increased even further.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Er, well, I think her 1.45 and 5.45 statements were admissable as evidence as regards the calunnia charge, were they not? Maybe I have gotten that wrong.

But I see this in Massei -

"...under chapter F of the charges is ascribed to Amanda Marie KNOX alone the crime of criminal defamation to the detriment of Diya Lumumba, known as ‚Patrick‛, a crime brought in by continuation [reato contestato nella forma continuata], insofar as the alleged false accusations in relation to the responsibility of Lumumba for the murder of Meredith Kercher is held to have been contained in several statements made by Knox to the investigators on November 6, 2007;". The bit underlined was already a Supreme Court decision.

The question of whether someone is a suspect or a witness is a nuanced one except when the circumstances are perfectly clear. There is a big grey area in between and the ECHR is not going to tread there. That this is so is because legislators and the courts fully understand the practicalities of police work. It is only when the police mess up when the circumstances are perfectly obvious that there are adverse implications for the prosecution. It seems to me that the couple of cases which Diocletian has cited are examples of the latter. The Ukranian who was obviously under arrest but the magical and mandatory words had not been used, for example.

It is difficult to see how the police obviously messed up in Knox's case and this is so even if one does not agree with their decisions. Whilst it is my opinion that she should have been treated as a suspect neverthelss the decision to treat her as a witness, it can easily be argued, falls well within the grey area. Come to that I'm not all that sure that she was still a suspect after she had accused Lumumba. She had after all just given an explanation as to why she had no alibi, had not confessed to a crime and, one might note, had made herself a witness in the event that the police believed her story which, by all accounts they did or at any rate had to until the matter was investigated further. You could say that she had just played a blinder. I am sure that instinctively she had thoiught so too. Chiacchiera actually argued that Knox and Sollecito should be released but subject to tight supervision including phone tapping. These are difficult decisions to make and even if the police sometimes get it wrong there are not necessarily adverse consequences and indeed throughout this case the courts have analysed and supported the decision making. This, in addition, is why the ECHR is not going to find anything wrong.

Prediction : Knox's application will get short shrift even assuming that it gets past the initial clearing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Jape wrote:
Er, well, I think her 1.45 and 5.45 statements were admissable as evidence as regards the calunnia charge, were they not? Maybe I have gotten that wrong.


No, they could be referred to and discussed, but not cited or used directly for the conviction. The keystone for the conviction was always the Memorial. They're referred to in the judgment only insofar as they provide the background context as to how the Memorial came about.


jape wrote:
The question of whether someone is a suspect or a witness is a nuanced one except when the circumstances are perfectly clear. There is a big grey area in between and the ECHR is not going to tread there. That this is so is because legislators and the courts fully understand the practicalities of police work. It is only when the police mess up when the circumstances are perfectly obvious that there are adverse implications for the prosecution. It seems to me that the couple of cases which Diocletian has cited are examples of the latter. The Ukranian who was obviously under arrest but the magical and mandatory words had not been used, for example.



Because of the nature of evidence (all evidence has a degree of ambiguity) it always has to an extent, be a judgment call on the part of police whether or not the evidence qualifies as strong enough to make someone a formal suspect, the grey area you mention, and the law makes allowances for that. Instead, it concerns itself on the grounds of whether it was done at a point that was reasonable or not. It isn't so rigid say, as an analogy, if held against a ruler it must always be exactly 10 1/2 inches long. This is because from case to case, no piece of evidence is identical to that from another. This naturally, blurs the edges to some extent.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:38 am   Post subject: MUCH MORE GILL   

Professor Gill, who wrote "Misleading DNA Evidence" and made such public pronouncements about the case, now appears unwilling to defend what he said. Swansea Jack was puzzled by some of his misstatements compared to the list of mistakes I found in the book so sent an e-mail to him requesting clarification on the blood in the bathroom. Here is his e-mail, and Gill's reply.

The following speaks for itself.


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 Aug 06, 2014 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Diocletian wrote:
max wrote:
Whatever happened with Guede's appeal to the ECHR? That could give an idea what the ECHR thinks about this case ;)

Quote:
Following supreme court judge Umberto Giordano's verdict, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti said: "We are not at all satisfied and will take this to Strasbourg.

http://news.sky.com/story/825375/blow-t ... ys-in-jail


Good question. For that matter, I thought that Lumumba and Venessa S might have somr sort of ECHR appeals, too, but don't know anything about them.

I don't know that any of these other proceedings would necessarily effect the specific issues presumably raised by Knox.


They said they were considering them, I think. But, we've had no confirmation on whether they actually decided to file and did so or not.

I don't think they eventually did or they would have made some noise about it. In an ironic way this is bad for any future appeals to the ECHR both Knox and Sollecito might be planning IMO. If something was terribly wrong with the investigation or judicial process then Guede should have appealed also the ECHR might think. Anyway, it is a waste of energy to take any ECHR appeals seriously. If you look at the numbers for the UK then 99% gets rejected. I doubt that for Italy that would be 80% as mentioned above.
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/01/24 ... nt-page-1/
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I'm always pleased on a Tuesday when the chain gets pulled after the number twos.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

(( OT OT ))

I just had to post this. Crocodile V Shark!!!!!!


Brutus the giant crocodile attacks shark in Australia

04:14, Biology/Ecology



Tourists in northern Australia have been left stunned by two fierce animals going head-to-head—a massive saltwater crocodile wrestling with a bull shark in its jaws.

Andrew Paice was on an hour-long wildlife cruise on the Adelaide River with his partner and seven-year-old daughter on Tuesday when they spotted something unusual on the riverbank.

Earlier they had watched as crocodiles, including the huge 5.5-metre (18-feet) male known as Brutus, leapt out of the water to eat a piece of buffalo meat held out on a pole to them.

"It was on the way back to the jetty, we went past Brutus again, he was up on the bank," Paice told AFP from Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory on Wednesday.

"As we were going past, we noticed that there was a fin. We thought it was a barramundi (fish) or something.

"And the guide took the boat in for a closer look and lo' and behold... it was a shark."

Brutus, who is thought to be about 80 years old and is missing a front leg and most of his teeth, is well known in the area, and the Northern Territory News described the battle as "Jaws v Claws".

Speculation is that the prospect of a fish dinner was tasty revenge for a croc that was thought to have lost his limb to one of the sharks who inhabit nearby waters.

"But from listening to other people, it was probably more likely a big crocodile (which took his front leg). But who knows? It was either a crocodile or a shark," Paice said.

His daughter was "awestruck" by the experience.

"So were the rest of the people including the guide; he had never seen it before either and he had been there for about 30 years. He was so excited."

The Northern Territory News said Brutus won the titanic struggle with the shark, but Paice said he wasn't so sure.


For full article: PHYSORG

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael


Note
Just a Note.
~ Don't be getting smart with an Admin. You'll find that your stay will be cut very short. We're very tired, so we won't be dicking around today.~


Maybe you should have started with this sentence? ;) This Diocletian seems intent on persecuting by tedium.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hey Jhansigirl, nice to see you :)

Yeah, I think last night we escaped death by toe clenching boredom with only a matter of minutes to spare. The good news, is next Tuesday is a whole week away.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: MORE STEVEN GILL   

Nell wrote:
SwanseaJack wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Mr. Pink of ORG has reminded me I haven't written a critique of Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" yet, just my bits and pieces. Professor Gill does indeed describe the case as a "miscarriage of justice" on page 164, even though he later sent an e-mail saying he doesn't express an opinion on guilt or innocence.

However there is an interesting comment on page 164 about "The hidden perpetrator effect".

"A perpetrator may have been correctly identified, but his DNA may be absent from the crime scene. DNA from innocent people may be recovered from the crime scene instead. The perpetrator may argue that his absence of a DNA profile, and the presence of other unexplained DNA profiles proves his innocence...Here the miscarriage of justice results in a correctly identified perpetrator being released because of the illogical reasoning explained above (Section 1.5.2) (pg. 13).

Ahem, isn't that the Sollecito defense? There is "no DNA" tying him to the crime scene, the presence of "other profiles" makes him not the perpetrator? Oh well.

ETA: This has implications in the Jon Benet Ramsey case too. Watch out, Mr. John Douglas :)



During my email exchange with Prof Gill he clearly stated he would not be drawn in to discussion of innocence or guilt, he stated that he was happyto discuss the probative value of the evidence only. I expected nothing else from Gill and respected his wishes, I presented him with the electropherogram of the blood sample taken from the cotton bud box and also Luciano Garofano's views in relation to this,and asked him for his opinion, Gill no longer seemed willing to discuss probative value of evidence and replied "Thanks for your email, but I hope you can understand that I cant get into specific details of this nature. It is up to others to decide"
Was my question not in relation to probative value of evidence?? I am led to wonder what Gill,s agenda is in relation to this case, who supplied him with the information he has stated in his book and finally why a man of his standing has not conducted deep research befor publishing such farcical statements as the clasp was kicked around in his book.

Jack


Hi Jack,

Good to see you.

His knowledge of the case is based on the Conti & Vecchiotti report that has been discredited.

In my opinion Prof. Gill has been approached by Amanda Knox supporters like so many others before him. They are always searching for new experts lazy enough to rely on them for information.



Hi Nell, just a quick note to say hi and thank you for all the help and support you have provided.
Kind regards Jack
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Hey Jhansigirl, nice to see you :)

Yeah, I think last night we escaped death by toe clenching boredom with only a matter of minutes to spare. The good news, is next Tuesday is a whole week away.



You too Michael. Always a pleasure to watch you debate with those guys.
:)

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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Jhansigirl,

Good to see you!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Amanda Knox's Phone Records


Please find attached Amanda Knox's phone records covering the time from the 1st of October 2007 to the 6th of November 2007 revealing her entire phone traffic for that period and another document that deals with the text messages recovered from Amanda Knox's phone memory and SIM card.

I am working on a spreadsheet to associate the names of her contacts with their respective phone numbers which I shall post in the next few hours.

See also downthread Amanda Knox phone activity log with attributed contacts: viewtopic.php?p=122052#p122052


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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ooooh... good stuff Nell. Thanks.

Already see her Italian was ok for texting. Interesting too all the meetings in the 'Center'.
Also see day after txt 'pj' and Spyros to notify them of Meredith's murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Dee71


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:34 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I’ve been reading through all the discussions about ECHR and Article 6 and, as I’m completely out of my depth, I wondered if I could ask a couple of questions? Apologies if they are really dumb or if I need to leave them until next Tuesday.

The Pakshayev case quoted by Diocletian got me thinking. Diocletian wrote: ....

“Following the confession, the police read out loud the arrest warrant and provided Pakshayev with counsel, after which he retracted his confession.”

But Knox didn’t retract it after seeing her legal representative, or indeed her Mum, did she? I understood that Lumumba was held for three (?) weeks and in all that time she didn’t retract her accusation? So does it legally make a difference if she was a witness/suspect/person of interest seeing as she was all of them over the three week period anyway? And isn’t it difficult for Knox to claim mistreatment, as it would have had to last for three weeks? Or am I being too simplistic? Law is a mystery to me.

Ok, so that’s more than a couple of questions, sorry!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

dgfred wrote:
Ooooh... good stuff Nell. Thanks.

Already see her Italian was ok for texting. Interesting too all the meetings in the 'Center'.
Also see day after txt 'pj' and Spyros to notify them of Meredith's murder.


Since Knox has uploaded her phone records to her blog I wanted to take a closer look. Her traffic is interesting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
(( OT OT ))

I just had to post this. Crocodile V Shark!!!!!!


The Northern Territory News said Brutus won the titanic struggle with the shark, but Paice said he wasn't so sure.



It's exactly like Sol and Noxa

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by Michael on Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:41 pm, edited 5 times in total.
fixed quote
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Dee71 wrote:
I’ve been reading through all the discussions about ECHR and Article 6 and, as I’m completely out of my depth, I wondered if I could ask a couple of questions? Apologies if they are really dumb or if I need to leave them until next Tuesday.

The Pakshayev case quoted by Diocletian got me thinking. Diocletian wrote: ....

“Following the confession, the police read out loud the arrest warrant and provided Pakshayev with counsel, after which he retracted his confession.”

But Knox didn’t retract it after seeing her legal representative, or indeed her Mum, did she? I understood that Lumumba was held for three (?) weeks and in all that time she didn’t retract her accusation? So does it legally make a difference if she was a witness/suspect/person of interest seeing as she was all of them over the three week period anyway? And isn’t it difficult for Knox to claim mistreatment, as it would have had to last for three weeks? Or am I being too simplistic? Law is a mystery to me.

Ok, so that’s more than a couple of questions, sorry!



Hi Dee71,

You're not a FOAKer and are not covered by the Tuesday Rule. Therefore, as an ordinary member you're free to ask whatever questions you want any day of the week :)

No, you're quite right, Knox never retracted her accusation of Lumumba and left him in jail for two weeks, even though during this period she had full access to her lawyers. She did tell her mum that she had falsley accused Patrick, but her mother opted not to tell anyone either claiming it was because she "couldn't speak Italian".

It does make a big difference as to what Knox's legal status was at each stage of the process, since each legal status imparts some very important legal rights, legal obligations and legal restraints on the individual. Also, the question of what her legal status was at any stage, is at the root of the debate as to whether her legal rights were correctly applied at each stage by the ILE or not.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hey Dee, about 2 weeks. Many mushy/confusing statements but never took the accusation back totally.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Zorba wrote:
It's exactly like Sol and Noxa


LOL :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox's Phone Records


Please find attached Amanda Knox's phone records covering the time from the 1st of October 2007 to the 6th of November 2007 revealing her entire phone traffic for that period and another document that deals with the text messages recovered from Amanda Knox's phone memory and SIM card.

I am working on a spreadsheet to associate the names of her contacts with their respective phone numbers which I shall post in the next few hours.



Nell's been working really hard on this for the past few days and has been doing some great detective work. Well done, Nell!!!

There's more to come, so watch this space.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
No, you're quite right, Knox never retracted her accusation of Lumumba and left him in jail for two weeks, even though during this period she had full access to her lawyers. She did tell her mum that she had falsley accused Patrick, but her mother opted not to tell anyone either claiming it was because she "couldn't speak Italian".

It does make a big difference as to what Knox's legal status was at each stage of the process, since each legal status imparts some very important legal rights, legal obligations and legal restraints on the individual. Also, the question of what her legal status was at any stage, is at the root of the debate as to whether her legal rights were correctly applied at each stage by the ILE or not.


Michael:

What did she say in her letter to her lawyers? Do we have that? I would really like that. I think it was around 9 November 2007 just after she met them at the Matteini hearing.

Also why did she only meet them there?

Sollecito let slip in a note to his father that he met his own lawyer the day after he was arrested though he and Knox in her book both claim Mignini refused lawyers access.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I'm having trouble opening PDFs from Microsoft Windows, maybe a proper restart instead of snooze/sleep will help.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

zorba wrote:
I'm having trouble opening PDFs from Microsoft Windows, maybe a proper restart instead of snooze/sleep will help.


Hi Zorba,

Please let me know if the problem persists. Any pdf reader should do the job.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, you're quite right, Knox never retracted her accusation of Lumumba and left him in jail for two weeks, even though during this period she had full access to her lawyers. She did tell her mum that she had falsley accused Patrick, but her mother opted not to tell anyone either claiming it was because she "couldn't speak Italian".

It does make a big difference as to what Knox's legal status was at each stage of the process, since each legal status imparts some very important legal rights, legal obligations and legal restraints on the individual. Also, the question of what her legal status was at any stage, is at the root of the debate as to whether her legal rights were correctly applied at each stage by the ILE or not.


Michael:

What did she say in her letter to her lawyers? Do we have that? I would really like that. I think it was around 9 November 2007 just after she met them at the Matteini hearing.

Also why did she only meet them there?

Sollecito let slip in a note to his father that he met his own lawyer the day after he was arrested though he and Knox in her book both claim Mignini refused lawyers access.


Hi Pete,

Amanda Knox's letter to her lawyers can be found at TMOMK.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, you're quite right, Knox never retracted her accusation of Lumumba and left him in jail for two weeks, even though during this period she had full access to her lawyers. She did tell her mum that she had falsley accused Patrick, but her mother opted not to tell anyone either claiming it was because she "couldn't speak Italian".

It does make a big difference as to what Knox's legal status was at each stage of the process, since each legal status imparts some very important legal rights, legal obligations and legal restraints on the individual. Also, the question of what her legal status was at any stage, is at the root of the debate as to whether her legal rights were correctly applied at each stage by the ILE or not.


Michael:

What did she say in her letter to her lawyers? Do we have that? I would really like that. I think it was around 9 November 2007 just after she met them at the Matteini hearing.

Also why did she only meet them there?

Sollecito let slip in a note to his father that he met his own lawyer the day after he was arrested though he and Knox in her book both claim Mignini refused lawyers access.



Knox made no retraction in her lawyer letter, she simply made a very vague statement that in no way could have been construed as a retraction. Moreover, there was no instruction to her lawyers to do anything about it. We did have the letter around here somewhere, although I can't see it in our "in Their Own Words" section. It'll turn up. I'll have a more thorough look later.

Interesting about Sollecito seeing his lawyer.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Some help requested on a mystery involving the large knife.

From a May 12 2008 report in Vanity Fair:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... 0806.print

Quote:
And, as Amanda informed her parents during a jail visit, she has no idea how that large knife managed to migrate from her own kitchen to her boyfriend’s house.


Is Knox saying it was her knife? Did this go anywhere? Oddly or not so oddly it is not in her book.

Is there a public transcript of the Capanne conversation?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Some help requested on a mystery involving the large knife.

From a May 12 2008 report in Vanity Fair:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... 0806.print

Quote:
And, as Amanda informed her parents during a jail visit, she has no idea how that large knife managed to migrate from her own kitchen to her boyfriend’s house.


Is Knox saying it was her knife? Did this go anywhere? Oddly or not so oddly it is not in her book.

Is there a public transcript of the Capanne conversation?


I think Judy Bachrach got rather mixed up there. I think Knox knew from the beginning the knife was from Sollecito's kitchen and not from the cottage. That woman got a lot of her facts wrong.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That 2nd letter sure does let it be known that nobody would have broken into that window, not to mention they didn't steal anything. Even she realized that was a stupid move.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, you're quite right, Knox never retracted her accusation of Lumumba and left him in jail for two weeks, even though during this period she had full access to her lawyers. She did tell her mum that she had falsley accused Patrick, but her mother opted not to tell anyone either claiming it was because she "couldn't speak Italian".

It does make a big difference as to what Knox's legal status was at each stage of the process, since each legal status imparts some very important legal rights, legal obligations and legal restraints on the individual. Also, the question of what her legal status was at any stage, is at the root of the debate as to whether her legal rights were correctly applied at each stage by the ILE or not.


Michael:

What did she say in her letter to her lawyers? Do we have that? I would really like that. I think it was around 9 November 2007 just after she met them at the Matteini hearing.

Also why did she only meet them there?

Sollecito let slip in a note to his father that he met his own lawyer the day after he was arrested though he and Knox in her book both claim Mignini refused lawyers access.



Knox made no retraction in her lawyer letter, she simply made a very vague statement that in no way could have been construed as a retraction. Moreover, there was no instruction to her lawyers to do anything about it. We did have the letter around here somewhere, although I can't see it in our "in Their Own Words" section. It'll turn up. I'll have a more thorough look later.

Interesting about Sollecito seeing his lawyer.


Perfect. I see Nell linked to it.

Sollecito wrote to his father in his “prison diary” on November 7:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/R ... Translated)

Quote:
I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [Tiziano Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge.


Actually his session with Matteini was on 8 Nov not 7 Nov; maybe RS dated his diary wrong?

No lawyers ever complained they were blocked from getting to their clients; they did have to be appointed which I guess was concluded on 7 Nov.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

When a crime takes place the police are open to anything, they neither suspect, nor do they not suspect, they retain an open mind, in accordance with what then follows and is ascertained. Therefore, nobody is immediately a suspect unless there is a reason to suspect them, but if an individual police officer already does suspect something, as the result of one thing or another, that is at the personal level and is not anything official. Since Knox was not called upon to go to the police headquarters, she was there of her own free will.

The police at that time had not called her in for questioning.

With Sollecito, they called him in and she, for fear of what would take place and for fear of not knowing what he might say or what she would need to talk to him about and, in the event of her absence, not being able to get her story straight with his, she went to the police station. She obviously never went to do any real helping.

If your neighbour gets run over by a car, a policeman would assume you have nothing to do with it. And if it wasn't a hit and run and your car isn't all dented up parked there while chatting to the policeman, he or she would not automatically assume you have anything to do with it, but if you did do it and your car isn't parked there, you would not start asking for a lawyer, whatever for, you are saying you don't know what happened, you just saw a car speed away, then found your friend lying there, the fact that it is known in certain circles that you were both having enormous arguments on a daily basis and there were threats, then that would be a reason to suspect, all of which would come out later but at the time, you are not automatically a suspect, Meredith's friends spoke to the police, it would be the only right thing to do any FRIEND would only be too pleased to help, in spite of incredible grief, to help in any way possible, and calling a lawyer would be the last thing on any FRIEND'S mind.

Knox being there, it was only natural she would, if she was decent, answer some question the police needed to know, meaning it says nothing about you as a suspect but you are valuable as a source of vital info that could help your FRIEND, you'd want to help them, unless you were the killer, then you'd want them off your back but there she is having gone along to the station of her own free will, and she cannot cope with it, and faced with the reality of it, is afraid she will tie herself in knots, since the crime had just been committed and there's no way she or anyone else could ever foresee which way the questions would come and just how you end up tripping yourself up over your own lies. You say one thing then later on down the line you say something else that turns out to clash with the preceding story lines. One of the worst was not at the station but Knox telling the police that Meredith always locked the door while the housemates were stood there and on overhearing it disputed this information.

Knox was trying to pretend to help and answer any questions about Meredith, not even about herself, and to answer general questions about the goings on around and in the house and the times leading up to the murder. In that a person starts saying things through nervousness and being over-helpful which adds to the brew, you are not even being asked and you are telling them all kinds of seemingly irrelevant stuff. The more she sat there the more she would have realised they might catch her out and she needed them off her back, meaning, to not be asking any more questions, and at that moment she would have partially regretted going there, though she will have realised they'd want to speak to her later on anyhow. She must then have been highly strung and wound up in her own paranoia, the events that had just taken place with her name written all over them, was all vividly replaying through her mind as she attempted to deal with the moment, so when she accused Patrick in a lateral attack, by saying things not directly accusative but if you relay a story saying I'm not saying anything but I saw him go into her room and then I heard thuds and basically knew what was happening then woke up next day at my boyfriend's place, you are saying he is the murderer.
Did she then do it as a temporary fix, so she could win time, or did she intend, if it played out that way, to let him roast in prison for the murder she committed.
If free and in America, would she have led to his release? No, because to do so she would have needed to tell the truth, that means she in fact was truly willing to let Patrick go to prison for life.

The sentence that she got then, for that calumnia, is not enough.

It is so wicked.

She must have thought things were closing in on her, I cannot work out whether she thought of it as a temporary relief, saying it was him, but since she did not lift a finger to see to his release, I cannot see, in her situation, back then, that she would ever have told the truth.
So in that case, her story would have been very different wouldn't it, she lets him stay in prison, she goes to America, therefore, never ever crying about being forced.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Dee71


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:34 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thank you Michael and dgfred for the replies. 2 weeks - duly noted. I think the legalities are way too complicated for me to ever really understand properly!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
I'm having trouble opening PDFs from Microsoft Windows, maybe a proper restart instead of snooze/sleep will help.


Hi Zorba,

Please let me know if the problem persists. Any pdf reader should do the job.



Thanks Nell,

I will it down in a bit, to see if some unfinished updates (that require a shut down that I delayed) are the cause.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Dee71 wrote:
Thank you Michael and dgfred for the replies. 2 weeks - duly noted. I think the legalities are way too complicated for me to ever really understand properly!



Don't worry, you'll pick it up over time :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
Hi Jhansigirl,

Good to see you!



Hello Nell, how are you?

Well done to you and Ergon on uncovering AK's threat to Sollecito.


:lol:

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

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox's Phone Records


Please find attached Amanda Knox's phone records covering the time from the 1st of October 2007 to the 6th of November 2007 revealing her entire phone traffic for that period and another document that deals with the text messages recovered from Amanda Knox's phone memory and SIM card.

I am working on a spreadsheet to associate the names of her contacts with their respective phone numbers which I shall post in the next few hours.



Thank you Nell.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

A quick comment on Amanda Knox's phone records. Note her text to DJ on the 5 Nov where she tries to give the impression that she actually went to Meredith's memorial that was held in Perugia.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yeah, I saw that. She txt that 'We' set up a memorial. She started early didn't she?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
A quick comment on Amanda Knox's phone records. Note her text to DJ on the 5 Nov where she tries to give the impression that she actually went to Meredith's memorial that was held in Peruigia.


Good catch! I missed that one. Unbelievable.

"Hi, I hope you are a bit ok. We just have had the remembrance moment for meredith on the piazza novembre. It was a strange feeling. But a good initiative. Take care."

Is Pj = DJ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Or somebody else?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell wrote:
Is Pj = DJ?


Well, I made that assumption.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Amanda Knox phone activity log with attributed contacts



We have two sources for the phone traffic between Meredith and Amanda: The phone records over an interval of approximately 5 weeks, covering the time between the 1st of October to the 6th of November 2007 and the logs from the text messages found on Amanda Knox’s phone memory and SIM card.

Both sources have their limitations. The phone records cover only the traffic for the time the prosecution requested from the phone company and from Knox’s phone we can only see the messages that have not been deleted.

From the little information that is available, we can see that on the 5th of October Amanda Knox sent a text message to Meredith Kercher and she replied later with another text message. These messages were not found on Knox’s phone.

Between the 5th and the 18th, there is no phone traffic at all between the two girls.

John Follain wrote in his book Death in Perugia:

Quote:
Soon after working at Le Chic, Amanda badgered Meredith to go there for a drink. Meredith eventually agreed and Amanda introduced her to Patrick.

[…]

A few days later, Amanda tagged along when Meredith and her friends spent an evening at the Velvet nightclub. Suddenly, Amanda emptied her glass over the head of the disc jockey. She was promptly thrown out, but Meredith sprang to her defence. […] Amanda was allowed back in.

The episode may have been too much for Meredith, because it was around this time in mid-October, that Filomena noticed that relations between Meredith and Amanda had cooled.

‘My impression is that Meredith is a bit sick and tired of Amanda,’ Filomena told Laura. As far as she could tell, it was just Amanda’s extrovert personality that irritated Meredith. From then on, according to Filomena, Amanda and Meredith saw less and less of each other. Amanda herself told Meredith that she only wanted to socialise with Italians because that way she would learn the language - which ruled out the English friends Meredith and tried to share with her.


In the time between the 18th of October leading up to the day of the murder, the girls exchange a few messages and phone calls. On the 31st of October Amanda Knox sent Meredith an SMS:
Quote:
”What are you doing tonight? Want to meet? Do you have a costume?”



Meredith replied a few minutes later:
Quote:
”Yes, I have to go to a friend’s house for dinner. What’s your program?”



Amanda Knox responds:
Quote:
I’m going to Le Chic for a while and then, who knows? Maybe we meet? Call me."


There are no further phone calls or text messages after that except for the time after the murder.


Meredith’s last text message to Amanda Knox stands out for me as she did not invite Amanda Knox to join her and her friends and Amanda apparently saw a possibility she would change her mind.


Another observation I have made by looking at Amanda Knox’s phone records is that besides Laura and Meredith, Amanda Knox did not seem to maintain any regular contact to other girls from her studies. Her acquaintances seem to have been exclusively men.

One of the phone numbers that I located on her phone records belongs to a man from Perugia who is now 38 years old and looking for love online. He has uploaded his mobile phone number to a variety of online dating websites and he would have been 31-32 years old at the time he met Amanda Knox.

++++

Please note that the document is still a work-in-progress. We might be able to identify other contacts and attribute them to their respective phone numbers and also please be aware that the document is not an original and might contain typos. Please let me know if you find any errors, so that I can make the appropriate corrections.

++++


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: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nell has done some great work on the phone records. It's not even who she spoke to (where we confirmed names) but the pattern of calls and texts are very interesting too! Looking forward to her telling the rest of the story about how she obtained them (whatever she's at liberty to say of course) and her findings.

ETA: I see you just posted, Nell :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Knox should also be on trial for grammar murder!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
Is Pj = DJ?


Well, I made that assumption.


dgfred wrote:
Or somebody else?



Considering with who we are dealing with it could be both. ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Lorenzo?

Pj?

One of those or a so far unidentified one must be Mr.Cocaine/etc

Called both BEFORE and AFTER the murder according to LE.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

dgfred wrote:
One of those or a so far unidentified one must be Mr.Cocaine/etc

Called both BEFORE and AFTER the murder according to LE.



So far, the phone records don't support that. Although, there are some numbers that have not as yet, been assigned. If such contacts took place, it was by some other means.

And that brings me on to my next point. These phone records are not exhaustive in regard to Knox's electronic communications. It has also been established that Knox regularly frequented an Internet cafe and used Skype to communicate with David Johnsrud (DJ) and who knows who else. These records, to our knowledge, were not retrieved by the ILE. Or, if they were, they were not considered relevant to her prosecution. There is also a blank in regard to her email activity.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I don't think Pj is DJ. Pj's phone number includes the Italian country code of 39.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I don't know how much Skyping drug dealers do. Like by non-traceable phone but we know from LE they got his number from phone records (or so they said).

Who is Lorenzo?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks beans.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 34 [ 8406 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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 


29,451,202 Views