Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

This is not true, certainly not in Italy. In Perugia in years around 2006-2012 there was an average between 600 and 1000 break ins in private houses per year. In less than 1-2 cases per year violent behaviours (threat) occurred, and there is significantly less than 1 case per year of physical violence. There was no case of rape or physical injury over the recent years.
But this is beyond the point. First, you need to consider that the FOAs theory is not a theory of 'burglary ending in rape', it is a theory of break in a private house that ends in a homicide followed by a post mortem-rape.

Perhaps you could show any examples of doing what you are accusing Amanda and Raff doing?

 

[Diocletus]

Perhaps you could show any examples of doing what you are accusing Amanda and Raff doing?

That will be coming along, together with the case where TMB/DNA-negative luminol blobs were used to convict somebody. I'll give him bonus points if he can combine the luminol and sex murder things in a single case.

 

[Desert Fox]

That will be coming along, together with the case where TMB/DNA-negative luminol blobs were used to convict somebody. I'll give him bonus points if he can combine the luminol and sex murder things in a single case.

There are couples which have been involved in sex murders but they have always known each other long term.

 

[Dan O.]

Oh dear,it appears that somewhere in the night the Machiavelli character has been rebooted again. His screed above fails to even consider the discussions on this very topic in the last few days.

However I do question myself about consistency, which also includes consistency of behaviour; I question myself for example about consistency between trail of bloody shoeprint from bedroom to house door, and absence of any trace of shoeprints back from house door to bedroom. If Guede did both the walks, is the complete visiblity of the first trail consistent with the complete absence of the second trail (not even highlighted with luminol)? It's clear to me that there is a poor grade of consistency between the two assumptions. And I can't fail to not that there is a complete lack of proof about the second action.

Here again for the new Machiavelli are the last few prints of the bloody shoe track showing that there is a clear order stoping not at the front door but in front of the couch at marker H.

I call again on the entity behind the Machiavelli screen name to show where the next footfall is before the next reboot.

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh dear,it appears that somewhere in the night the Machiavelli character has been rebooted again. His screed above fails to even consider the discussions on this very topic in the last few days.

​

Here again for the new Machiavelli are the last few prints of the bloody shoe track showing that there is a clear order stoping not at the front door but in front of the couch at marker H.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30302&d=1393000877[/qimg]

I call again on the entity behind the Machiavelli screen name to show where the next footfall is before the next reboot.

This will date me but I used to discuss creation and evolution on bbs board. I remember this poster who argued for creation and I basically demolished every single one of their arguments.

He did almost exactly the same thing that Machiavelli seems to do. Never accept any arguments against him and would just repeat the same arguments over and over again.

As such, it is possible that Machiavelli is one person.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh dear,it appears that somewhere in the night the Machiavelli character has been rebooted again. His screed above fails to even consider the discussions on this very topic in the last few days.

​

Here again for the new Machiavelli are the last few prints of the bloody shoe track showing that there is a clear order stoping not at the front door but in front of the couch at marker H.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30302&d=1393000877[/qimg]

I call again on the entity behind the Machiavelli screen name to show where the next footfall is before the next reboot.

As for my knowledge, the last shoe print still visible in blood is finding n.191, located exactly before the exit door. Finding n.190 is considered the shoeprint immediately behind, albeit it is the last one that yields a positive DNA result; the latter is already in the area before the exit door outside from the kitchen (as you may consider the kitchen "finished" beyond the refrigerator door: this is the location of rep.190 the "last but one" print; from that spot there is less 1 meter left to the housedoor, where there is a mat; rrp. 191 is the last print and is located at the end of this last meter).

I never made committed any footfall. Not even about the reversed jeans (although, that one is worth some further talk). I note that noboy seems capable to disprove my points.

 

[Numbers]

The ECtHR has a Q&A for applicants where it suggests that the initial waiting period for an examination of an application is one year. (See highlighted text below.) This may be a goal, rather than a formal rule of the Court.

From: European Court of Human Rights Questions & Answers
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

What are the main stages in the process?

The Court must first examine whether your application is
admissible. This means that the case must comply with certain
requirements set out in the Convention. If the conditions are
not satisfied, your application will be rejected. If you have made
several complaints, the Court may declare one or more of them
admissible and dismiss the others.

If your application or one of your complaints is declared
inadmissible, that decision is final and cannot be reversed.

If your application or one of your complaints is declared
admissible, the Court will encourage the parties (you and
the State concerned) to reach a friendly settlement. If no
settlement is reached, the Court will consider the application
“on the merits” – that is, it will determine whether or not there
has been a violation of the Convention.

How long will I have to wait?

In view of the current backlog of cases, you may have to wait a year before the Court can proceed with its initial examination of your application. Some applications may be treated as urgent
and dealt with as a matter of priority, particularly where the
applicant is said to be in imminent physical danger.

 

[Diocletus]

I note that noboy seems capable to disprove my points.

True. We also can't disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I never made committed any footfall. Not even about the reversed jeans (although, that one is worth some further talk).

This should be worth a laugh. And why not? I don't see what we accomplish by depriving ourselves of the comic relief afforded by people like "Machiavelli."

So, bring it on. Do tell us how it is that you are right about the reversed jeans. Bonus points if you can keep it under 5,000 words.

 

[Kauffer]

Earthquake scientists acquitted

Well, well, this infamous Italian embarrassment had been sorted out for now. I wonder if the prosecution will appeal?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29996872

 

[Diocletus]

Well, well, this infamous Italian embarrassment had been sorted out for now. I wonder if the prosecution will appeal?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29996872

Thank heavens, else we wouldn't have had this:

"The credibility of Italy's entire scientific community has been restored," said Stefano Gresta, the president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology.

Also, check out the pictures of the angry villagers railing against the acquittal.

 

[Kauffer]

Sane judge

Thank heavens, else we wouldn't have had this:



Also, check out the pictures of the angry villagers railing against the acquittal.

"Judge Fabrizia Ida Francabandera ruled that there was no case to answer." (Same link)

Maybe they can put him on the Kercher case!

 

[Numbers]

Well, well, this infamous Italian embarrassment had been sorted out for now. I wonder if the prosecution will appeal?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29996872

Excerpts from the BBC article:

Judge Fabrizia Ida Francabandera ruled that there was no case to answer.

The prosecution can still seek to have the original verdicts reinstated via a higher court.
_______

The CSC has yet to impart its wisdom on the case, IIUC.

 

[Machiavelli]

This should be worth a laugh. And why not? I don't see what we accomplish by depriving ourselves of the comic relief afforded by people like "Machiavelli."

So, bring it on. Do tell us how it is that you are right about the reversed jeans. Bonus points if you can keep it under 5,000 words.

The reversed jeans is not something I made up. It was something I recall correctly from the trial papers.
I acknowledge that Dan O. posted pictures of what seems non-reversed jeans, at least the visible part of them, that was where it was Dan the one who partly caught me off-guard (I had seen the pictures too, but I was also recalling the papers, and thinking about that when I wrote). The reversed jeans however indeed was a point of the evidence.
The reversed jeans is discussed in Stefanoni's hearing of May 22. (I think pages 70-71 or near), it comes from the Police RT findings: the jeans were reversed, says Stefanoni, because there are blood drops in the inside part of the jeans, especially the upper area of the jeans near the waist, blood drops which are not smears and not the results of contact but seem fallen from above.
Maybe Stefanoni was wrong when she said the jeans were found reversed (maybe), but she was right pointing out the blood drops were on the inside, that they occurred at the time when the crime was committed not subsequently (it's not a secondary staining) and they did not come from contact with the body.

 

[christianahannah]

The reversed jeans is not something I made up. It was something I recall correctly from the trial papers.
I acknowledge that Dan O. posted pictures of what seems non-reversed jeans, at least the visible part of them, that was where it was Dan the one who partly caught me off-guard (I had seen the pictures too, but I was also recalling the papers, and thinking about that when I wrote). The reversed jeans however indeed was a point of the evidence.
The reversed jeans is discussed in Stefanoni's hearing of May 22. (I think pages 70-71 or near), it comes from the Police RT findings: the jeans were reversed, says Stefanoni, because there are blood drops in the inside part of the jeans, especially the upper area of the jeans near the waist, blood drops which are not smears and not the results of contact but seem fallen from above.
Maybe Stefanoni was wrong when she said the jeans were found reversed (maybe), but she was right pointing out the blood drops were on the inside, that they occurred at the time when the crime was committed not subsequently (it's not a secondary staining) and they did not come from contact with the body.

I don't have Stefanoni's testimony to read at the moment, but did she say that the jeans were found reverse or that she perceived that at one time they would have been reverse because of the condition of the blood drops (and then they were later turned back to their proper side)?

 

[Numbers]

There was some controversy in this forum about what the ECtHR could rely on for evidence. Mach had insisted that the ECtHR relied only on official state domestic court records to form its judgments. That statement is not at all correct. The Convention and Rules of the ECtHR allow it to rely on any written material (which it prefers for convenience and undoubtedly budgetary concerns) but also any form of evidence, including testimony of witnesses, it believes necessary. It has full powers to investigate in pursuit of its responsibilities to judge. Below I have copied ECtHR Rule A1 from the Rules of the Court document at:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf

Those who read Mach's statements should be aware that even on issues of law the statements are not always accurate.

Rule A1 – Investigative measures

1. The Chamber may, at the request of a party or of its own motion, adopt any investigative measure which it considers capable of clarifying the facts of the case. The Chamber may, inter alia, invite the parties to produce documentary evidence and decide to hear as a witness or expert or in any other capacity any person whose evidence or statements seem likely to assist it in carrying out its tasks.

2. The Chamber may also ask any person or institution of its choice to express an opinion or make a written report on any matter considered by it to be relevant to the case.

3. After a case has been declared admissible or, exceptionally, before the decision on admissibility, the Chamber may appoint one or more of its members or of the other judges of the Court, as its delegate or delegates, to conduct an inquiry, carry out an on-site investigation or take evidence in some other manner. The Chamber may also appoint any person or institution of its choice to assist the delegation in such manner as it sees fit.

4. The provisions of this Chapter concerning investigative measures by a delegation shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to any such proceedings conducted by the Chamber itself.

5. Proceedings forming part of any investigation by a Chamber or its delegation shall be held in camera, save in so far as the President of the Chamber or the head of the delegation decides otherwise.

6. The President of the Chamber may, as he or she considers appropriate, invite, or grant leave to, any third party to participate in an investigative measure. The President shall lay down the conditions of any such participation and may limit that participation if those conditions are not complied with.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't have Stefanoni's testimony to read at the moment, but did she say that the jeans were found reverse or that she perceived that at one time they would have been reverse because of the condition of the blood drops (and then they were later turned back to their proper side)?

She did actually also say that they were 'found' reverse. But what she talked about was the blood stains, she focused on them, pointing out that they were on the internal part, that 'had become external'.

 

[Machiavelli]

There was some controversy in this forum about what the ECtHR could rely on for evidence. Mach had insisted that the ECtHR relied only on official state domestic court records to form its judgments. That statement is not at all correct. The Convention and Rules of the ECtHR allow it to rely on any written material (which it prefers for convenience and undoubtedly budgetary concerns) but also any form of evidence, including testimony of witnesses, it believes necessary. It has full powers to investigate in pursuit of its responsibilities to judge. Below I have copied ECtHR Rule A1 from the Rules of the Court document at:
(...)

What I intended to say is slightly different. Yes the Court can admit external sources of evidence (but basically only if the case is admissible), but the fact is that the ECHR does not carry on investigation on any fact that has not been already an object of legal settlement. There are no facts that the Court will decide to deal with on its own inquiry, which were not already raised in some process of investigation or judicial settlement.
What I mean is that a claimant such as Knox may not raise at the ECHR a complaint for having been hit as a violation of her human rights, or a complaint that her false accusation was coerced by police, since no complaint for being hit was ever raised under due process and no claim of coercion was made during her trial (she claimed a false memory syndrome).

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, well, this infamous Italian embarrassment had been sorted out for now. I wonder if the prosecution will appeal?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29996872

I think the people her don't have really a clue of what that trial was about.

Wrong sources don't help the English speaking public: that they were "convicted of manslaughter for failing to predict a deadly earthquake" is factually false.

 

[Numbers]

What I intended to say is slightly different. Yes the Court can admit external sources of evidence (but basically only if the case is admissible), but the fact is that the ECHR does not carry on investigation on any fact that has not been already an object of legal settlement. There are no facts that the Court will decide to deal with on its own inquiry, which were not already raised in some process of investigation or judicial settlement.
What I mean is that a claimant such as Knox may not raise at the ECHR a complaint for having been hit as a violation of her human rights, or a complaint that her false accusation was coerced by police, since no complaint for being hit was ever raised under due process and no claim of coercion was made during her trial (she claimed a false memory syndrome).

According to Paragraph 3 of Rule A1, exceptionally, the ECtHR can investigate to determine admissibility (1st highlighted text).

(bolded text) There are cases where the legal settlement or process is denied, and that is the very basis for the application to the ECtHR, and motivates ECtHR judgment.

The ECtHR can determine whether or not a substantive claim was made, or whether the threat of a calunnia charge by the police adversely influenced her practical ability and that of her lawyers to follow the formal process. The ECtHR is sensitive to maneuvers by authorities to suppress human rights by various legalisms. This may mean that even if the ECtHR would not be able to find BARD that Italy had violated Article 3 in substance, ECtHR may find that Italy had violated Article 3 by failing to conduct an effective investigation. (2nd highlighted text)

In due time we shall see what the ECtHR finds.