Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

Machiavelli - you may be the only person in the world who believes this.

Scientific American disagrees with you.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seismologists-cleared-of-manslaughter-for-failing-to-predict-quake/​

According to the prosecution, when the earthquake struck on April 6, 29 people chose to remain at home instead of stepping outside as they otherwise would have done, and died in the collapse of their homes. All seven members of the expert commission were found guilty of manslaughter in October 2012, after a 13-month trial that transfixed the international scientific community.​

I do not know why you want to say such things which are false and obviously false. By your own definition, you are lying - but I can only know that you are mistaken.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Of course, we have already said that. For example when you submit a claim and the police don't follow with appropriate investigation. But it needs to be raised, through the proper legal channels.

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.

But you would be talking about another case, and possibly another world. The lawyers would be disbarred if they withdrew from submitting a denouncement because of fear of a hypotherical threat of a calunnia charge that may be raised in the future against a client who is now being arrested on a charge of murder. It's a "fear" that would make no sense as defensive strategy, it would be suicidal. I understand that you want to follow your threads, and anything could be theoretically submitted to the ECHR, but let's consider scenarios within the realm of common sense.
They also should e somehow related to the case. Independently from any police conduct, Amanda Knox released a spontaneous statement without any interrogation taking place, before a magistrate and witnesses, and there has been no defence claim that this was a questioning. Moreover she submitted hand written memoires in which she repeated the action of placing false evidence.

The ECtHR is sensitive to maneuvers by authorities to suppress human rights by various legalisms.

But the ECHR never questioned the existence of the charge of calunnia in the penal code. It's not a kind of legalism that is going to be realistically disputed by the ECHR.

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)

There isn't a realistic possibility of that in my opinion, if we are talking about the allegation of having been hit. But most important: even if a hypotethical violation by the police was suspected, that would be irrelevant as for the final outcome of Knox's calunnia conviction. She would have been convicted for calunnia in any event, even if it had been proven in the trial that somebody hit her, and even if hypothetically the Cassazione orders a review of the trial she would be found guilty of calunnia again.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Stefanoni testified to Massei that the jeans were reversed:

She emphasised that many samples were taken from the pair of jeans found near the
feet of the victim, but all yielded only traces of the victim's blood. She added that the
jeans were found inside out, and there were copious traces of blood mainly on the
upper part, and also traces of blood that did not seem to be caused by rubbing.​

I think where you go wrong, Machiavelli, is that you take Stefanoni at her word too much. There is no discussion in Massei, "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."

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

So how long did these 7 very distinguished scientists, selfless public servants, have to spend in an Italian prison in this miscarriage of justice?

How many lost years?

Can we please just admit that Italy should not be allowed to conduct actual trials? If they want to hold these things for entertainment, that's fine I suppose, but its not fair to have human beings lose their freedoms to this foolishness.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
I do not know why you want to say such things which are false and obviously false. By your own definition, you are lying - but I can only know that you are mistaken.

Don't dare to call me a liar. You are really not in a position for doing so.

I am saying that, while Scientific American merely has a misleading and omissive article, the BBC presented factually false information.

I am saying that it is false that "scientsts were convicted for failing to predict an earthquake".

It is false.

Clear?

I am not just 'stating' something. I can prove it. I can prove it with a just link to an Italian source, if you can understand Italian.
Actually I should not do it, it can be proven, it can be checked by yourself.

The scientists were not convicted for failing to predict. And they were not convicted for their work as scientists.
The defendants (not all of them scientists) were convicted for lying - not for failing to predict: they were very good at assessing risk actually - they were convicted for taking part to a fake session of a governmental risk-assessmnt comittee, and for presenting false information to the public on a press conference. They did so not on their own initiative, but on request of a Government agency. It was an operation organized to conceal, to manufacture false 'scientific findings' that were fed to the public and to the local authorities.

 

[LondonJohn]

Machiavelli - you may be the only person in the world who believes this.

Scientific American disagrees with you.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seismologists-cleared-of-manslaughter-for-failing-to-predict-quake/​

​

I do not know why you want to say such things which are false and obviously false. By your own definition, you are lying - but I can only know that you are mistaken.

This case, the Knox/Sollecito case and the Berlusconi trials are powerful illustrations of just how broken the Italian criminal justice system is in its current form.

An important point to remember is this: regardless of what anyone believes regarding the guilt or non-guilt of those involved in these three sets of trials, it's a horrific indictment of the system that in each instance the verdicts were so comprehensively overturned by the court of appeal. These were perhaps the highest-profile criminal cases in Italy in the past decade, yet all have been through near-farcical (if it wasn't so very serious) flip-flops in court judgements.

It's nowhere near good enough, and it surely must lead to a fundamental lack of trust in Italian criminal justice. If I lived/worked in Italy, I would be seriously concerned at this point about whether or not the courts can actually do their jobs properly and justly. The system is manifestly broken.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you want a link where you may understand something of what the L'Aquila earthquake trial was about?

http://inchieste.repubblica.it/it/repubblica/rep-it/2012/01/18/news/il_terremoto_negato-28369392/

Btw, of the 7 defendants, six are aquitted in appeal but one was convicted.
This is an article about the verdict of today. Notice that the title focuses on the "Serious Risks Committee", a political organ, not just scientific.
It should also be noted that the verdict acquits the defendants from criminal charges, but determines they still have civil responsibilities and have to pay damages:

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/11/10/news/l_aquila_processo-100213076/


http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/11/10/terremoto-laquila-tutti-assolti-i-componenti-commissione-grandi-rischi/1203072/

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't dare to call me a liar. You are really not in a position for doing so.

I am saying that, while Scientific American merely has a misleading and omissive article, the BBC presented factually false information.

I am saying that it is false that "scientsts were convicted for failing to predict an earthquake".

It is false.

Clear?

I am not just 'stating' something. I can prove it. I can prove it with a just link to an Italian source, if you can understand Italian.
Actually I should not do it, it can be proven, it can be checked by yourself.

The scientists were not convicted for failing to predict. And they were not convicted for their work as scientists.
The defendants (not all of them scientists) were convicted for lying - not for failing to predict: they were very good at assessing risk actually - they were convicted for taking part to a fake session of a governmental risk-assessmnt comittee, and for presenting false information to the public on a press conference. They did so not on their own initiative, but on request of a Government agency. It was an operation organized to conceal, to manufacture false 'scientific findings' that were fed to the public and to the local authorities.

So has the appeal court committed a miscarriage of justice in throwing out the convictions on "no case to answer"? By your version of events, there would appear to be at least a clear case to answer. Is the Italian Court of Appeal being disfunctional and unjust in its treatment of this case? If so, what do you think this might indicate about the state of chaos in the Italian criminal justice system? After all, if you're right and accurate, then very possibly a further appeal may lead to the reinstatement of the convictions.

Some dreadful and unfit-for-service justice system you've got yourselves there....

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't dare to call me a liar. You are really not in a position for doing so.

I am saying that, while Scientific American merely has a misleading and omissive article, the BBC presented factually false information.

I am saying that it is false that "scientsts were convicted for failing to predict an earthquake".

It is false.

Clear?

I am not just 'stating' something. I can prove it. I can prove it with a just link to an Italian source, if you can understand Italian.
Actually I should not do it, it can be proven, it can be checked by yourself.

The scientists were not convicted for failing to predict. And they were not convicted for their work as scientists.
The defendants (not all of them scientists) were convicted for lying - not for failing to predict: they were very good at assessing risk actually - they were convicted for taking part to a fake session of a governmental risk-assessmnt comittee, and for presenting false information to the public on a press conference. They did so not on their own initiative, but on request of a Government agency. It was an operation organized to conceal, to manufacture false 'scientific findings' that were fed to the public and to the local authorities.

Machiavelli - you do not need to repeat yourself. You have repeated this many times and you are understood. You don't need to clarify, people "get" what you are saying. There is no disagreement that you are saying is what you are saying.

Your argument is not with me. It is with the rest of the world other than yourself.

You can "split hairs" and engage in dietrology all you want. Without you and all the dietrology, this thread would be a very boring place.

You communicate very well. Your English is very good. There is no mistaking what you are saying. Saying it again doesn't make it any more clear, you were perfectly clear and understandable the first time we went through this. You have been consistent in your views, and have not changed your story on this issue. You have also not avoided the obvious questions in relation to this - you have been forthright, and honest (according to your own point of view).

It's just that Scientific American says you are wrong. It's why I did not call you a liar - all I said is that by the definition of "lying" which you use, you could be accused so. I disagree with your definition of what "lying" is, so that's why I said that you were mistaken on this issue, not lying.

 

[Machiavelli]

This case, the Knox/Sollecito case and the Berlusconi trials are powerful illustrations of just how broken the Italian criminal justice system is in its current form.

An important point to remember is this: regardless of what anyone believes regarding the guilt or non-guilt of those involved in these three sets of trials, it's a horrific indictment of the system that in each instance the verdicts were so comprehensively overturned by the court of appeal. (...)

I'm not that sure that the L'Aquila verdict was so 'comprehensively' overturned on appeal such as with the Perugia verdict.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - you do not need to repeat yourself. You have repeated this many times and you are understood. You don't need to clarify, people "get" what you are saying. There is no disagreement that you are saying is what you are saying.

Your argument is not with me. It is with the rest of the world other than yourself.

You can "split hairs" and engage in dietrology all you want. Without you and all the dietrology, this thread would be a very boring place.

You communicate very well. Your English is very good. There is no mistaking what you are saying. Saying it again doesn't make it any more clear, you were perfectly clear and understandable the first time we went through this. You have been consistent in your views, and have not changed your story on this issue.

It's just that Scientific American says you are wrong. It's why I did not call you a liar - all I said is that by the definition of "lying" which you use, you could be accused so. I disagree with your definition of what "lying" is, so that's why I said that you were mistaken on this issue, not lying.

No. Nobody is splitting hair here. The problem is that - and I'm sorry but this is usual with you as a poster - if you want to know what the L'Aquila trial is about, you should not just claim you know it as long as you read what Scientific American says or even what the rest of the world says about it. You need to look at some direct source. You need to look at the trial, at the real papers. The trial was not about failing to predict earthquakes. The trial is about a Committee who does not make any scientific assessment, but instead 'obeys' to the orders of Guido Bertolaso, who dictated on the telephone what the experts should write in their findings.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. Nobody is splitting hair here. The problem is that - and I'm sorry but this is usual with you as a poster - if you want to know what the L'Aquila trial is about, you should not just claim you know it as long as you read what Scientific American says or even what the rest of the world says about it. You need to look at some direct source. You need to look at the trial, at the real papers. The trial was not about failing to predict earthquakes. The trial is about a Committee who does not make any scientific assessment, but instead 'obeys' to the orders of Guido Bertolaso, who dictated on the telephone what the experts should write in their findings.

What is "usual" with you as a poster is the strict definition of dietrology. You claim knowledge that is unavailable to others. You then make an assertion (in this case about an alleged telephone call) and NEVER provide the kind of detail where it can be judged.

If you wanted to solve this and truly educate me, you would provide a transcript of that telephone call. Instead, you just claim it is factual. Good for you!

However, the issue for this forum is that you have made your own views very clear. You have been understood.

You have just not been agreed with. Once again, your argument is not with me, and it is not with my style as a poster. Your argument is with the whole world other than yourself.

Why not write Scientific American and tell THEM why they are wrong? Why not write to the BBC and tell THEM why they are wrong?

What would you have accomplished, really, if you convinced me? Then it would be you and me as the only two people in the world who share the view you regard as factual - a view you have very successfully communicated with very little confusion. Everyone else - except you and me - would have the view that Scientific American and the BBC has.

 

[toto]

Do you want a link where you may understand something of what the L'Aquila earthquake trial was about?

http://inchieste.repubblica.it/it/repubblica/rep-it/2012/01/18/news/il_terremoto_negato-28369392/

Btw, of the 7 defendants, six are aquitted in appeal but one was convicted.
This is an article about the verdict of today. Notice that the title focuses on the "Serious Risks Committee", a political organ, not just scientific.
It should also be noted that the verdict acquits the defendants from criminal charges, but determines they still have civil responsibilities and have to pay damages:

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/11/10/news/l_aquila_processo-100213076/


http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/11/10/terremoto-laquila-tutti-assolti-i-componenti-commissione-grandi-rischi/1203072/

Thanks for the link. Google translate has the following words regarding the charges: "monumental negligence" providing information "inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory about the dangers of seismic activity," "undermining the work to protect the population."
Is it not splitting hairs a bit to say this can't be paraphrased to failing to predict the earthquake? I suppose one might read into "not predicting" as not being proactive in assessing the situation where the reality is they gave presumably their best thoughts on the data they had, which turned out to be incorrect? I mean they obviously didn't deliberately give false information?

 

[Numbers]

No. Nobody is splitting hair here. The problem is that - and I'm sorry but this is usual with you as a poster - if you want to know what the L'Aquila trial is about, you should not just claim you know it as long as you read what Scientific American says or even what the rest of the world says about it. You need to look at some direct source. You need to look at the trial, at the real papers. The trial was not about failing to predict earthquakes. The trial is about a Committee who does not make any scientific assessment, but instead 'obeys' to the orders of Guido Bertolaso, who dictated on the telephone what the experts should write in their findings.

So do you predict that the prosecution will appeal this 2nd level verdict to the CSC and that the acquittal (if that is the proper term) will be quashed?

 

[js202]

So has the appeal court committed a miscarriage of justice in throwing out the convictions on "no case to answer"? By your version of events, there would appear to be at least a clear case to answer. Is the Italian Court of Appeal being disfunctional and unjust in its treatment of this case? If so, what do you think this might indicate about the state of chaos in the Italian criminal justice system? After all, if you're right and accurate, then very possibly a further appeal may lead to the reinstatement of the convictions.

Some dreadful and unfit-for-service justice system you've got yourselves there....

On this and other sites related to the Kercher murder case, you lie like you, presumably, breathe. Whether or not this makes you a liar in your book is up to you.

ETA Sorry, LJ, this, of course, was intended for your interlocutor, not you.

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli
Do you have an opinion on the intriguing case of the murder of Sarah Scazzi, are the convictions of Sabrina and Cosima Misseri, who are in custody pending their first appeal, safe? It is harder for us to get reliable information on this case.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for the link. Google translate has the following words regarding the charges: "monumental negligence" providing information "inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory about the dangers of seismic activity," "undermining the work to protect the population."
Is it not splitting hairs a bit to say this can't be paraphrased to failing to predict the earthquake? I suppose one might read into "not predicting" as not being proactive in assessing the situation where the reality is they gave presumably their best thoughts on the data they had, which turned out to be incorrect? I mean they obviously didn't deliberately give false information?

Wikipedia has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake

The 2009 L'Aquila earthquake occurred in the region of Abruzzo, in central Italy. The main shock occurred at 03:32 CEST (01:32 UTC) on 6 April 2009, and was rated 5.8 or 5.9 on the Richter scale and 6.3 on the moment magnitude scale;[6] its epicentre was near L'Aquila, the capital of Abruzzo, which together with surrounding villages suffered most damage. There have been several thousand foreshocks and aftershocks since December 2008, more than thirty of which had a Richter magnitude greater than 3.5.[6]

The earthquake was felt throughout central Italy; 309 people are known to have died,[4] making this the deadliest earthquake to hit Italy since the 1980 Irpinia earthquake. In a subsequent inquiry of the handling of the disaster, seven members of the Italian National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks were accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" information about the danger of the tremors prior to the main quake.[7][8] On 22 October 2012, six scientists and one ex-government official were convicted of multiple manslaughter for downplaying the likelihood of a major earthquake six days before it took place. They were each sentenced to six years' imprisonment.[7][8][9] On 10 November 2014, The scientists convicted of manslaughter for failing to predict the deadly earthquake have had the verdict overturned.____
Based on this, the ex-government official IIUC is still criminally responsible?

 

[carbonjam72]

No. Nobody is splitting hair here. The problem is that - and I'm sorry but this is usual with you as a poster - if you want to know what the L'Aquila trial is about, you should not just claim you know it as long as you read what Scientific American says or even what the rest of the world says about it. You need to look at some direct source. You need to look at the trial, at the real papers. The trial was not about failing to predict earthquakes. The trial is about a Committee who does not make any scientific assessment, but instead 'obeys' to the orders of Guido Bertolaso, who dictated on the telephone what the experts should write in their findings.

This is a fascinating quote. So please tell me, in Italy can government experts, like Stefanoni for example, simply be ordered by officials, like Mignini for example, to simply come up with the result that is desired at that moment?

 

[Machiavelli]

What is "usual" with you as a poster is the strict definition of dietrology. You claim knowledge that is unavailable to others. You them make an assertion (in this case about an alleged telephone call) and NEVER provide the kind of detail where it can be judged.

If you wanted to solve this and truly educate me, you would provide a transcript of that telephone call. Instead, you just claim it is factual.

But I just pasted a link, that includes a vide with the recording of it!

However, the issue for this forum is that you have made your own views very clear. You have been understood.

You have just not been agreed with. Once again, your argument is not with me, and it is not with my style as a poster. Your argument is with the whole world other than yourself.

Why not write Scientific American and tell THEM why they are wrong? Why not write to the BBC and tell THEM why they are wrong?

Who cares? Everybody has a right to be wrong, if they like so. Do you think I should write to the rest of humanity about everything I think they do wrong?

And I repeat it: it's not my view. It's facts. There's nothing to agree or disagree about. If you say scientists were convicted for failing to predict an earthquake, either you believe the information is true, or you believe it is false. The title of the Scientific American article is false.
This alleged "under trial for failing to predict an earthquake" is not a piece of information you would find in the Italian news sources.
It's a defence claim, though. It is something the scientests say in the interviews. They say "we are accused for failing to predict earthquakes".
But if you look at the allegations and settings of the trial and read a bit of news about it, you see the truth is, this is not what is written in the charges and accusation against them. That's not what the prosecutors are accusing them of. Has nothing to do with it. Quite the contrary.
The Scientific American article, within the text, admits that the real issue they were accused for was not that of prediction, but that of "botched communication". Only, Scientific American does not tell the whole story when refers to a "local amateur earthquake predictor", who they report to have "claimed he had evidence of an impending quake", and does not reveal wht the Committee actually did.
The said saismologist who somehow "raised" alarm (actually he didn't do it publicly) was not an amateur, and was not exactly a local albeit he works in a seismologic laboratory located near there, he had expressed concerns in some mails, but the problam is that the 'other' mails, those mails sent by scientists of the Serious Risks Committee, they were expressing identical concerns and identical risk assessment. The text of a mail is linked in one of the liks I pasted. The fact is the seismologists did not write about those concerns and prediction in the Committee report they gave to the public. Even the Comittee 'session' was fake. What they wrote instead was the words that were dictated by Bertolaso, a high government officer.
Now, on Appeal, only the person who read the report - Government officer officer De Bernardinis - was found guilty, while the other members of the Committee were found innocent. However, they did breach ethical rules, since they took part to a fake scientific session, and thus they were ordered to pay damages.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a fascinating quote. So please tell me, in Italy can government experts, like Stefanoni for example, simply be ordered by officials, like Mignini for example, to simply come up with the result that is desired at that moment?

Absolutely not. In fact they were charged.
But Mignini is not a Government officer. Bertolaso was a government officer with a practical power equal to that of a minister. Mignini could not fire Stefanoni and has no power on her, but Bertolaso could throw out the experts from their well paid posts at Government Committee if he wanted.