Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Magister
- Start date
- Status
I have also thought the hair in Meredith's hand could be her own highlighted hair. My hypothesis why the police "lost" it and attributed it to a cloth fiber is that her having that hair caught on her finger nail suggests that at least one hand was free (at least for awhile). It tends to contradict the police and prosecution theory that two people were each restraining her arms (IIUC that theory).
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Be careful there. That's another site that cannot handle the truth.
This is incorrect. All that can be implied is that the semen was still wet at the time it was stepped in and tracked to that spot of the pillow. It's entirely possible that the semen was there waiting to be stepped on before the murder, perhaps even before Meredith came home.
While that is a new idea, it is plausible, but leaves the digital penetration less likely.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
A documentary from 2010, just after the 2009 conviction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFEYao1qy7c&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFEYao1qy7c&feature=youtu.be
An ECHR case of interest: denial of a lawyer during "interrogation" and false confession.
CASE OF LOPATA v. RUSSIA 72250/01 13/07/2010
The applicant was accused of murdering his underage daughter's boyfriend, D, after the applicant had observed them having sex.
The applicant was arrested by Russian police, and according to the applicant, he was severely beaten and threatened over the course of several days until he confessed. His lawyer was not allowed to visit him during this period of interrogation. The authorities failed to conduct a proper forensic medical examination of the applicant after his alleged beating, but his lawyer was allowed to see him then and reported his visible injuries, including an apparent ruptured eardrum. The authorities briefly investigated the claims of mistreatment, but dismissed them after the police allegedly involved denied any such mistreatment had occurred. The applicant retracted his confession upon meeting his lawyer.
The evidence at trial was primarily the confession, which the applicant had retracted. The defense stated that the confession had only been made because the applicant had been severely abused. Also admitted into evidence was a pretrial statement by the daughter, which she retracted, that the applicant had observed her sitting on D's lap engaged in sex and had chased her home, that the applicant was nervous the next morning and said a body had been found. Other witnesses testified that they had heard the voices of the daughter and D near the crime scene, and that they had seen the daughter and D kiss.
The applicant was convicted at the first-level trial which was confirmed on appeal. The allegations of police mistreatment to obtain the confession were considered false by the courts because the police denied them. Application to the ECtHR was filed in 2001. In 2003, the ECtHR notified the Russian government of the application. Soon afterward, a Russian Federal Police Captain (a high-ranking officer) discussed the application with the prisoner, seeking to have it modified to remove reference to the police abuse.
The ECtHR found the following:
1. They could not find BARD that the applicant had been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment due to the lack of evidence - that is, the medical exam had been so incomplete that no conclusion could be drawn. Thus, no substantive violation of Art. 3.
2. The ECtHR found the investigation of the allegations of abuse were ineffective. For example, the prosecutor had not interviewed the suspect police officers, the applicant, or his lawyer about the abuse. There also was a failure of the court to allow the questioning of the forensic medical doctor who examined the applicant as had been requested by the defense and to investigate certain inconsistencies in statements by the police. Thus, there was a procedural violation of Art. 3.
3. The ECtHR found that the lack of the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation which included the confession, which arguably was obtained under duress and mistreatment, was a violation of Art. 6.3c.
4. The ECtHR then found that since the confession was a significant contributor to the domestic courts' finding of guilty, there was a violation of Art. 6.1, the right to a fair trial.
5. Redress, the ECtHR found, could be by a retrial conducted in accordance with the ECHR, if requested by the applicant.
6. The ECtHR also found that Russia was in violation of Art. 34, the right not to be hindered in applying to the ECtHR.
Here is the wording used by the ECtHR for items #4 and #5:
....the Court concludes that the use of the applicant's confession statement obtained in circumstances which raised doubts as to its voluntary character, and in the absence of legal assistance, together with the apparent lack of appropriate safeguards at the trial, rendered the applicant's trial unfair.
145. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with its paragraph 3 (c).
....the Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as 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....
CASE OF LOPATA v. RUSSIA 72250/01 13/07/2010
The applicant was accused of murdering his underage daughter's boyfriend, D, after the applicant had observed them having sex.
The applicant was arrested by Russian police, and according to the applicant, he was severely beaten and threatened over the course of several days until he confessed. His lawyer was not allowed to visit him during this period of interrogation. The authorities failed to conduct a proper forensic medical examination of the applicant after his alleged beating, but his lawyer was allowed to see him then and reported his visible injuries, including an apparent ruptured eardrum. The authorities briefly investigated the claims of mistreatment, but dismissed them after the police allegedly involved denied any such mistreatment had occurred. The applicant retracted his confession upon meeting his lawyer.
The evidence at trial was primarily the confession, which the applicant had retracted. The defense stated that the confession had only been made because the applicant had been severely abused. Also admitted into evidence was a pretrial statement by the daughter, which she retracted, that the applicant had observed her sitting on D's lap engaged in sex and had chased her home, that the applicant was nervous the next morning and said a body had been found. Other witnesses testified that they had heard the voices of the daughter and D near the crime scene, and that they had seen the daughter and D kiss.
The applicant was convicted at the first-level trial which was confirmed on appeal. The allegations of police mistreatment to obtain the confession were considered false by the courts because the police denied them. Application to the ECtHR was filed in 2001. In 2003, the ECtHR notified the Russian government of the application. Soon afterward, a Russian Federal Police Captain (a high-ranking officer) discussed the application with the prisoner, seeking to have it modified to remove reference to the police abuse.
The ECtHR found the following:
1. They could not find BARD that the applicant had been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment due to the lack of evidence - that is, the medical exam had been so incomplete that no conclusion could be drawn. Thus, no substantive violation of Art. 3.
2. The ECtHR found the investigation of the allegations of abuse were ineffective. For example, the prosecutor had not interviewed the suspect police officers, the applicant, or his lawyer about the abuse. There also was a failure of the court to allow the questioning of the forensic medical doctor who examined the applicant as had been requested by the defense and to investigate certain inconsistencies in statements by the police. Thus, there was a procedural violation of Art. 3.
3. The ECtHR found that the lack of the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation which included the confession, which arguably was obtained under duress and mistreatment, was a violation of Art. 6.3c.
4. The ECtHR then found that since the confession was a significant contributor to the domestic courts' finding of guilty, there was a violation of Art. 6.1, the right to a fair trial.
5. Redress, the ECtHR found, could be by a retrial conducted in accordance with the ECHR, if requested by the applicant.
6. The ECtHR also found that Russia was in violation of Art. 34, the right not to be hindered in applying to the ECtHR.
Here is the wording used by the ECtHR for items #4 and #5:
....the Court concludes that the use of the applicant's confession statement obtained in circumstances which raised doubts as to its voluntary character, and in the absence of legal assistance, together with the apparent lack of appropriate safeguards at the trial, rendered the applicant's trial unfair.
145. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with its paragraph 3 (c).
....the Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as 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....
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I don't think it does. With Rudy having already had fantasy sex, he is in the bathroom when Meredith comes home. He is caught trying to sneak out and there is a physical altercation in the hall where Rudy's pants are falling down. He chases Meredith into her bedroom and plays out his fantasy of having a date culminating in the digital penetration.
I actually think you may be getting close, as a scenario it seems to fit with a young man who knows he is illicitly in the home of four women. The theory looks sound.
I wonder if others will weigh in here, because it fills gaps that have puzzled me, particularly the unlikelihood of quasi necrophilia.
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
The prison population figures in European Union countries are affected on a national identity basis by the right of all EU nationals to travel, work and reside throughout the Union. As a Brit, I could move to Italy tomorrow, rent or buy property, take employment or start a business. My rights are equal to an Italian's - at least in theory. In practice, language and cultural barriers are often insurmountable obstacles to exercising one's rights.
In terms of justice systems, one of the principles supporting the drive toward ever tighter union is that they are all honest and of a similar quality. Yet this is square pegs in round holes thinking. Former communist and fascist regimes now found at the centre of Europe have been accorded rights and privileges they simply have not demonstrated they have earned, a mere 25 years after they were run by murderous dictators.
These rights are enshrined in the European Arrest Warrant and have put and continue to put European nationals at constant risk of injustice. Abusive police forces, bribery and corruption are commonplace outside of Britain, France and Germany.
Thanks to PMF to self immolate the meme Amanda Knox was the greater criminal pre Meredith's murder.
Next Friday the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to confirm the sentence to Rudy Guede for one year and five months' imprisonment for the theft (break-in) in a kindergarten in Milan that took place in autumn 2007...
http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/rudy-cas ... i-1.456482
The Machine/Harryrag will tweet 700 international journalists with a retraction of his seven year long claim. If he does not, an equally obsessive person from the pro innocence side may do so, but some how I doubt it.
Next Friday the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to confirm the sentence to Rudy Guede for one year and five months' imprisonment for the theft (break-in) in a kindergarten in Milan that took place in autumn 2007...
http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/rudy-cas ... i-1.456482
The Machine/Harryrag will tweet 700 international journalists with a retraction of his seven year long claim. If he does not, an equally obsessive person from the pro innocence side may do so, but some how I doubt it.
My comment earlier was right on. This is what I wrote:
"I guess Knoxer's own lawyer should have keep his mouth shut when he spilled the beans telling reporters that she was never hit. I mean, it really doesn't help the cause."
Even ace reporter Candace Dempsey agrees with me:
“Luciano Ghirga, the lawyer for Amanda, rendered speculation moot by mocking his American client’s American supporters and, bizarrely, America itself. Never one to talk to reporters, he suddenly gushed–skillfully undermining his own client’s case. As caught on tape by Frank of Perugia Shock, Ghirga said:
‘There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit.”
Good luck with ECHR and "I was hit" issue.
"I guess Knoxer's own lawyer should have keep his mouth shut when he spilled the beans telling reporters that she was never hit. I mean, it really doesn't help the cause."
Even ace reporter Candace Dempsey agrees with me:
“Luciano Ghirga, the lawyer for Amanda, rendered speculation moot by mocking his American client’s American supporters and, bizarrely, America itself. Never one to talk to reporters, he suddenly gushed–skillfully undermining his own client’s case. As caught on tape by Frank of Perugia Shock, Ghirga said:
‘There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit.”
Good luck with ECHR and "I was hit" issue.
What a crock.
BTW: Euro country with the highest number of foreigners in it's prisons? It's Germany.
anglolawyer
Banned
Amanda's testimony that she was carries more weight than some informal, off the cuff remark by one of her lawyers. If you have been following the cases Numbers has been posting you will see there is a lot more to it than the blows. Not was it her evidence that she 'confessed' because she was hit.
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
Like me you are entitled to your opinion.
anglolawyer
Banned
You are very gracious. Are you of a different opinion? If so, you probably need to attend more closely. Then you would get more out of the duscussion than you seem to. I can think of several important things that have emerged in the last few threads and of course the case itself grinds its way towards a conclusion and throws up discussion-worthy developments.
You remind me of a girl who shared our house at law school. When we watched football on the telly she would sit beside it, facing us, and go on non-stop about how boring it was.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Can you see, Vibio, the difference between what you claimed Mr Ghirga said and what he actually said? Let's look at it in sharp focus:
Vibio's states - "her own lawyer claims she was not hit"
The lawyer actually says - "we never said she was hit"
Do you appreciate the different meanings? Do you see how, once again what you say happened is contradicted by the evidence? It's here in black and white for everyone to see.
You are joking aren't you?
You're talking about Italy? The US has an incarceration rate that is 6 times as high as ours.
"Justice is harsher in America than in any other rich country. Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under “correctional” supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan. "
Wow: one adult in 31 is under “correctional” supervision in the US, but "Numbers" hypothesis is that the vast majority of Italians have a lawyer on retainer, just in case.
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
Last edited:
You can parse what he said anyway you like. Her lawyer her spokesperson says "we never said she was hit" (as opposed to saying she was hit.). Even ace reporter C. Dempsey admitted that with that statement he was "undermining his own client’s case".
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
"According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2013, nearly half of surveyed households perceive the judiciary as “corrupt” or “extremely corrupt”. This is also reflected in the Eurobarometer 2012, where nearly two-fifth of surveyed Italians think bribery and abuse of power are widespread among people working in judicial services, despite that more than half think that preventing and fighting corruption is the responsibility of the judicial system."
http://www.business-anti-corruption.../italy/corruption-levels/judicial-system.aspx
Oh dear, Vibio!
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Again, your ability to interrogate language for specific meaning is shown to be lacking. Mr Ghirga did NOT claim that Ms Knox was not hit.
By all means, do carry on posting erroneously. Your contributions here are representative of the vacuous claims of the entire pro guilt lobby. Your very presence contributes to rendering most PG claims null and void.
- Status