carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
can you explain the point you're making here?
-
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
can you explain the point you're making here?
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
The question on how Meredeth's DNA ended up on the knife and Raff's ended up on the bra clasp. We will never know but there are a number of explanations which are consistent with innocent transfer.
Here's another case for the Remedial ECHR Law course:
CASE OF MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA 58428/10 27/03/2014
The case is summarized in the next post. For readers interested in ECHR law as applied to the AK-RS case, the parallels are striking with respect to the treatment of expert witness evidence (substitute DNA testing for psychiatric or medical opinion). And there was a conviction after acquittal. Note that the quashing of the acquittal does not, as guilters suppose, wipe it off the face of the earth; it is still a judicial opinion of value. The quashing is merely a sign of the violation of defendant's rights.
CASE OF MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA 58428/10 27/03/2014
The case is summarized in the next post. For readers interested in ECHR law as applied to the AK-RS case, the parallels are striking with respect to the treatment of expert witness evidence (substitute DNA testing for psychiatric or medical opinion). And there was a conviction after acquittal. Note that the quashing of the acquittal does not, as guilters suppose, wipe it off the face of the earth; it is still a judicial opinion of value. The quashing is merely a sign of the violation of defendant's rights.
Last edited:
Here's another case for the Remedial ECHR Law course:
CASE OF MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA 58428/10 27/03/2014
Relevance: Conviction after acquittal; Evaluation & admissibility of expert evidence
Summary {excerpts}:
The applicant was an instructor at an institution that provided elements of yoga, special breathing techniques, mantra singing, meditation, listening to music, aromatherapy and other similar practices. Participants were recommended to follow a certain diet and do exercises at home. The intent was to promote a "healthy lifestyle." There was no tuition or fee required, but contributions were requested. The institution had applied for a government license as a sports facility but was denied it on the grounds that yoga, breathing techniques, etc. were not sports or health-improving activities and in any event were not listed in the Unified Russian Register of Sports Activities.
A young woman, S.D., and her twin sister took a series of courses at the institution. S.D. contributed the equivalent of 20 EUR to the institution. At a certain point, S.D. started to develop psychological problems and was eventually diagnosed as suffering from psychosis, with some psychiatrists but not all who examined her stating she had schizophrenia.
According to the applicant, S.D.'s mother, a fervent Orthodox Christian, claimed that the institution was a sect and attributed S.D.'s psychiatric illness to the activities she engaged in at the institution. According to the doctors at the clinic where Ms S.D. was treated, her mental condition was related to her participation in the programmes of the association, which was referred to in the medical record of 2 July 2002 as a “sect”. Later entries in her medical record also mentioned the “religious” character of her delusions. Following the admission of Ms S.D. to the clinic, an internal inquiry was conducted, which concluded that her medical condition was of a “religious and occult nature” and had been caused by her participation in the programmes of the association.
On 24 July 2003 an investigator from the Khabarovsk Region police force questioned Ms S.D. in connection with the events of April-June 2002. According to her testimony, the association received payment from the participants of the programme; the programme consisted of breathing techniques, listening to audio-recordings of the voice of the guru, and other similar practices which Ms S.D. characterised as brainwashing. Ms S.D. testified that she had almost stopped eating completely during the period she was attending the courses because the teachers had told her that food was poison. She had also dropped out of her course at the university. At some point she had lost track of the events and had returned to her normal self only in the clinic.
The Russian prosecutor asked for several psychiatric experts to examine S.D., and also for opinions from several experts as to whether the institution was practicing medicine without a license.
On 26 November 2004 the applicant was formally charged with practicing medicine without a license. She pleaded not guilty from the first questioning.
Other experts, solicited by the applicant's lawyer, opined that these practices were not at all medical and criticized the prosecution's expert reports.
There was a trial at first-level and the applicant was acquitted on 23 July 2007. In particular, the court concluded that the applicant and Ms M.S. f(a co-defendant) had not realised that their activities might fall within the ambit of medical practice or that they could have been harmful to the health of others. The court also found that the programmes of the association did not amount to medical practice.
The court excluded from evidence the expert reports of the prosecution as incomplete, self-contradictory and unreliable.
The prosecution appealed.
On 20 December 2007 the acquittal was quashed by the Regional Court and the case was referred back to the trial court. The Regional Court disagreed with the assessment of evidence by the trial court, and with its decision to declare some evidence, namely, expert reports, inadmissible. The Regional Court also pointed to various procedural shortcomings in the trial proceedings.
In the new trial, the expert opinions of the prosecution were admitted and full value given to them. However, those of the defense were not admitted, for technical reasons relating to Judge M's interpretation of Russian law.
The applicant and her co-defendant were convicted in this retrial. The defence appealed. They complained, in particular, that judge M. had based the judgment on the testimony of witnesses he had not heard in person. They also complained about the refusal of the trial court to admit expert opinions submitted by the defence in evidence and obtain a new expert examination of the condition of Ms S.D. On 25 March 2010 the Regional Court sustained the conviction; it did not find any breach of the domestic substantive or procedural law in the proceedings before the trial court.
The ECtHR Opinion:
205. Again, the Court is not well placed to indicate to the national judge the best course of action. Judge M. had several options: for example, he could have obtained a fresh expert examination of the matter, could have allowed the defence to submit a written opinion by one of their “specialists”, or could have examined Dr A.’s written report or his oral submissions. Instead, Judge M. contented himself with relying on the same written opinions by the prosecution’s experts which had earlier been rejected by another judge as inadmissible, unreliable and inconclusive, that is, without any meaningful verification of their credibility.
206. In sum, the Court concludes that, insofar as the handling of expert evidence concerning the nature of the activities of the association was concerned, the defence was placed in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the prosecution and the proceedings were not truly adversarial. That situation is contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
207. The Court is mindful of the fact that Judge M. heard a number of witnesses for the defence, examined several expert opinions and studied various documents. However, the question of whether or not the defence enjoyed “equality of arms” with the prosecution and whether the trial was “adversarial” cannot be addressed solely in quantitative terms. In the present case it was very difficult for the defence to effectively challenge the expert evidence submitted to the court by the prosecution. The Court stresses that the case against the applicant was built upon that expert evidence. In those circumstances, the way in which expert evidence was handled made the applicant’s trial unfair. Therefore, the Court does not need to address the other procedural violations alleged by the applicant.
208. On the strength of the above the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
CASE OF MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA 58428/10 27/03/2014
Relevance: Conviction after acquittal; Evaluation & admissibility of expert evidence
Summary {excerpts}:
The applicant was an instructor at an institution that provided elements of yoga, special breathing techniques, mantra singing, meditation, listening to music, aromatherapy and other similar practices. Participants were recommended to follow a certain diet and do exercises at home. The intent was to promote a "healthy lifestyle." There was no tuition or fee required, but contributions were requested. The institution had applied for a government license as a sports facility but was denied it on the grounds that yoga, breathing techniques, etc. were not sports or health-improving activities and in any event were not listed in the Unified Russian Register of Sports Activities.
A young woman, S.D., and her twin sister took a series of courses at the institution. S.D. contributed the equivalent of 20 EUR to the institution. At a certain point, S.D. started to develop psychological problems and was eventually diagnosed as suffering from psychosis, with some psychiatrists but not all who examined her stating she had schizophrenia.
According to the applicant, S.D.'s mother, a fervent Orthodox Christian, claimed that the institution was a sect and attributed S.D.'s psychiatric illness to the activities she engaged in at the institution. According to the doctors at the clinic where Ms S.D. was treated, her mental condition was related to her participation in the programmes of the association, which was referred to in the medical record of 2 July 2002 as a “sect”. Later entries in her medical record also mentioned the “religious” character of her delusions. Following the admission of Ms S.D. to the clinic, an internal inquiry was conducted, which concluded that her medical condition was of a “religious and occult nature” and had been caused by her participation in the programmes of the association.
On 24 July 2003 an investigator from the Khabarovsk Region police force questioned Ms S.D. in connection with the events of April-June 2002. According to her testimony, the association received payment from the participants of the programme; the programme consisted of breathing techniques, listening to audio-recordings of the voice of the guru, and other similar practices which Ms S.D. characterised as brainwashing. Ms S.D. testified that she had almost stopped eating completely during the period she was attending the courses because the teachers had told her that food was poison. She had also dropped out of her course at the university. At some point she had lost track of the events and had returned to her normal self only in the clinic.
The Russian prosecutor asked for several psychiatric experts to examine S.D., and also for opinions from several experts as to whether the institution was practicing medicine without a license.
On 26 November 2004 the applicant was formally charged with practicing medicine without a license. She pleaded not guilty from the first questioning.
Other experts, solicited by the applicant's lawyer, opined that these practices were not at all medical and criticized the prosecution's expert reports.
There was a trial at first-level and the applicant was acquitted on 23 July 2007. In particular, the court concluded that the applicant and Ms M.S. f(a co-defendant) had not realised that their activities might fall within the ambit of medical practice or that they could have been harmful to the health of others. The court also found that the programmes of the association did not amount to medical practice.
The court excluded from evidence the expert reports of the prosecution as incomplete, self-contradictory and unreliable.
The prosecution appealed.
On 20 December 2007 the acquittal was quashed by the Regional Court and the case was referred back to the trial court. The Regional Court disagreed with the assessment of evidence by the trial court, and with its decision to declare some evidence, namely, expert reports, inadmissible. The Regional Court also pointed to various procedural shortcomings in the trial proceedings.
In the new trial, the expert opinions of the prosecution were admitted and full value given to them. However, those of the defense were not admitted, for technical reasons relating to Judge M's interpretation of Russian law.
The applicant and her co-defendant were convicted in this retrial. The defence appealed. They complained, in particular, that judge M. had based the judgment on the testimony of witnesses he had not heard in person. They also complained about the refusal of the trial court to admit expert opinions submitted by the defence in evidence and obtain a new expert examination of the condition of Ms S.D. On 25 March 2010 the Regional Court sustained the conviction; it did not find any breach of the domestic substantive or procedural law in the proceedings before the trial court.
The ECtHR Opinion:
205. Again, the Court is not well placed to indicate to the national judge the best course of action. Judge M. had several options: for example, he could have obtained a fresh expert examination of the matter, could have allowed the defence to submit a written opinion by one of their “specialists”, or could have examined Dr A.’s written report or his oral submissions. Instead, Judge M. contented himself with relying on the same written opinions by the prosecution’s experts which had earlier been rejected by another judge as inadmissible, unreliable and inconclusive, that is, without any meaningful verification of their credibility.
206. In sum, the Court concludes that, insofar as the handling of expert evidence concerning the nature of the activities of the association was concerned, the defence was placed in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the prosecution and the proceedings were not truly adversarial. That situation is contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
207. The Court is mindful of the fact that Judge M. heard a number of witnesses for the defence, examined several expert opinions and studied various documents. However, the question of whether or not the defence enjoyed “equality of arms” with the prosecution and whether the trial was “adversarial” cannot be addressed solely in quantitative terms. In the present case it was very difficult for the defence to effectively challenge the expert evidence submitted to the court by the prosecution. The Court stresses that the case against the applicant was built upon that expert evidence. In those circumstances, the way in which expert evidence was handled made the applicant’s trial unfair. Therefore, the Court does not need to address the other procedural violations alleged by the applicant.
208. On the strength of the above the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Last edited:
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,003
Of course there is, there is also solid explanations involving lab contamination and outright fraud. My point is that even the RIS Lab there in Italy has said without some kind of duplication of a secondary test, this is basically worthless.
The idea that the defense should be required to speculate along these lines is wrong.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Life is not fair even in the best of legal systems. Often the defense has to do work their really should not have to. Even when it is voodoo science, they need to show it.
Hook was deformed
Then you certainly could show us a picture of the undeformed hooks. I could not find and do not remember any.
On injusticeinperugia, there is an article A visual inspection of the bra clasp by Ron Hendry. Compare for exemple picture 2 with picture 4 shown there.
Picture 2 shows the deformed hook, it was taken "as it was initially found". So the deformation had taken place before this photo was taken.
Obviously no deformation had been occurred between Nov. 2/3 and Dec. 18.
Greetings
Then you certainly could show us a picture of the undeformed hooks. I could not find and do not remember any.
On injusticeinperugia, there is an article A visual inspection of the bra clasp by Ron Hendry. Compare for exemple picture 2 with picture 4 shown there.
Picture 2 shows the deformed hook, it was taken "as it was initially found". So the deformation had taken place before this photo was taken.
Obviously no deformation had been occurred between Nov. 2/3 and Dec. 18.
Greetings
Please take a look at this petition...thoughts welcomed!!
https://www.change.org/p/ministero-...edith-kercher-in-perugia-it?just_created=true …
https://www.change.org/p/ministero-...edith-kercher-in-perugia-it?just_created=true …
This is relevant to this thread.
Shrien Dewani is currently being tried for a murder where other perpetrators are in jail.
The main perpetrator Tongo has been given a reduced sentence for helping the police convict Shrien Dewani of employing him as a contract killer.
Shrien Dewani has been retrofitted with motive because the prosecuting state requires a motive. Essentially he discussed with others, as did his wife, the advisibility of pursuing a till death us do part path.
He is bisexual.
Therefore he arranged to have his wife killed on their honeymoon by people he did not know.
Note that the key similarities are that
1. Confessed killers are already in jail.
2. He was under no financial stress.
3. The plan he is alleged to have designed would with complete certainty lead straight back to him with unequivocal smoking gun evidence.
Anyone who disputes point 3. should organise to kill some one and remain at large by perfect design.
Shrien Dewani is currently being tried for a murder where other perpetrators are in jail.
The main perpetrator Tongo has been given a reduced sentence for helping the police convict Shrien Dewani of employing him as a contract killer.
Shrien Dewani has been retrofitted with motive because the prosecuting state requires a motive. Essentially he discussed with others, as did his wife, the advisibility of pursuing a till death us do part path.
He is bisexual.
Therefore he arranged to have his wife killed on their honeymoon by people he did not know.
Note that the key similarities are that
1. Confessed killers are already in jail.
2. He was under no financial stress.
3. The plan he is alleged to have designed would with complete certainty lead straight back to him with unequivocal smoking gun evidence.
Anyone who disputes point 3. should organise to kill some one and remain at large by perfect design.
An interesting and pertinent piece to peruse.......for Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele.
https://www.change.org/p/ministero-...edith-kercher-in-perugia-it?just_created=true …
https://www.change.org/p/ministero-...edith-kercher-in-perugia-it?just_created=true …
And further to my last post, who ever on this thread read anything resembling this, just now from BBC.
The family of Mrs Dewani, from Sweden, said last week it would it be a "nightmare" if the trial did not continue.
Her brother Anish Hindocha said: "It will be a terrible rejection after a four-year wait if we as a family do not hear the true story.
The family of Mrs Dewani, from Sweden, said last week it would it be a "nightmare" if the trial did not continue.
Her brother Anish Hindocha said: "It will be a terrible rejection after a four-year wait if we as a family do not hear the true story.
MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/contamination-photos-before-and-after/
Left: This is the piece of bra so as photographed and not reperted the night between 2 and November 3, 2007
Right: The “same” piece December 18, 2007 when reperted. The hook is further deformed. The flap of tissue visibly deteriorated
Shrien Dewani has been acqitted on a duplicate case summary that Judge Hellman correctly found innocent Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.
Well worth a comparative study, not just because these cases are similar but because all cases where innocent people are persecuted when close to personal tragedies are similar.
I hope all you fools and knaves at TJMK and PMF who decided Shrien Dewani was guilty listen carefully to this brave judge.
Well worth a comparative study, not just because these cases are similar but because all cases where innocent people are persecuted when close to personal tragedies are similar.
I hope all you fools and knaves at TJMK and PMF who decided Shrien Dewani was guilty listen carefully to this brave judge.
lonepinealex
Muse
I don't think the two cases are all that similar. There's a world of difference between the two judicial systems for a start.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
It's a theme isn't it? Victims' families wanting the courts to provide them with "truths". But when the "truths" told in court are not the "truths" they want to hear, they complain. What they really want is for the courts to grant the prosecution case with minimal analysis, because they consider the prosecutor as ducklings consider their mother - follow, follow, wherever she goes.
If the ISC rule in Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's favour next year or the European Court rules in Ms Knox's favour, will the Kercher family apologise for taking part in a sadistic witchunt? Of course they won't. Now, in the Dewani case, the victim's parents plan to sue Mr Dewani! And the injustice continues.
Meanwhile, in the Uk, we continue to campaign against egregious extradition laws that do not permit British courts and judges to ask the question: "Is there a case to answer?"
Congratulations to the South Aftican judge for her courage and commitment to justice. Now then - substantial compensation for Mr Dewani, please.
Similarity is endemic where people who did not participate in a crime are retrofitted to suit the prosecution. Other similarities are accidental. I specified what I saw as similarities, but dissimilarities of course abound.
lonepinealex
Muse
Similarity is endemic where people who did not participate in a crime are retrofitted to suit the prosecution. Other similarities are accidental. I specified what I saw as similarities, but dissimilarities of course abound.
Sure, I just think a comparative analysis is unwarranted. Aside from the systemic differences, the railroading itself isn't nearly so cut and dried in the Dewani case. I believe he is innocent, but there are questions that haven't been adequately answered and I don't blame people for being suspicious.
Knox / Sollecito guilters are simply either ignorant of the facts or stupid.
A conscious effort to make posts relevant to the thread is mandated by the rules, thus I may seem pedantic. However I am personally fascinated by the duplication of mob behaviour, and I disagree there are unanswered questions. Dewani Knox and Sollecito have been degraded by the lynch mob, and what better cause than to call to account the bottom feeders that are vindictive or stupid??
- Status