tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The hilited term seems rude and uncivil.
-
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
The hilited term seems rude and uncivil.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Migninians? As opposed to Knoxians, Amandites, AK47, Knife boy, oh why go on, I'm sure you're far more familiar with all the droll variations.
Once, again, it's the pot calling the kettle black. (no offense, and not meant to be racist).
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
I think the biggest lie the police ever tell however is that they can actually help you. When they are questioning you, if you are a suspect, nothing you can tell them will help you.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Numbers said:
tsig said:
It's not meant as uncivil. It's meant as descriptive.
There is a curious phenomenon amongst some who argue things which come from a notion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.... and that is this sub-group (Migninians) who rarely make reference to evidence as assessed by either convicting court; and default to Mignini's case from 2009.
They constantly refer back to Mignini's case - major items of which end up not being sustained by either Massei's or Nencini's court - and obviously not Hellmann's court. (The hate sites collected their data, mainly from smae-day presentations in court from the prosecution, and simply accepted those points as unchallenged truth.)
The current back and forth about racism is one such example. In Massei, for instance, there is a total of one singular reference to someone's race - in this case, Massei notes that both Lumumba and Guede are "black", without explaining why (p. 1, in outlining what charge "F" is about, the calunnia charge.)
I have a list of thirteen such issues waiting to be reprinted here (oh no, not the list!) of issues that even the Massei court disagreed with the, then, prosecution about.....
...... issues like the nature of Meredith and Amanda's friendship, the motive for the killing, etc., all issues advanced at trial and rejected by Massei in his motivations report. Yet "Migninians" continue as if Massei had never expressed an opinion - or made a judgement. Read Massei's motivations - Massei rejects most of Mignini's claims. (For instance, AK and RS turning off their mobiles on the evening of Nov 1 is not a sign of premeditation, because no court found premeditation.)
Yet those things endure for "guilters", which now becomes a term not specific enough. Look at the volumes of posts about AK's supposed psychopathology.... and this extends to her family and supporters. Where does that come from, if not Mignini? It doesn't come from anything any court found.
Led by Machiavelli/Yummi, on the hate-sites and here on ISF/JREF (and for about three years on IIP) Machiavelli advances/defends Mignini's case.
The ONLY exception to this I can think of is when during the Florence/Nencini trial in the fall of 2013, Machiavelli suddenly and without warning openly wondered here on ISF/JREF if suddenly the kitchen knife from Raffaele's was a match for the bedsheet stain on Meredith bed - an outline of a much smaller knife in blood.
No one previously had ever suggested that - indeed, one of the reasons for advancing a two-knife theory (as described on p. 405 of the Massei report) was the incompatibility of the kitchen knife with the dimensions on the sheet.
Lo and behold - prosecutor Crini the next week repeats in the Florence Court what Machiavelli pondered here.
Otherwise - "Migninians" offer a point of view more specific than found in either the Masse or Nencini reports - that Mignini's original rants (sex-game gone wrong, racism involved on the part of anyone who would defend Amanda, etc.) are essentially correct.
A final point - Michael Winterbottom's film, "The Face of an Angel" is not primarily about this case; it's about the tabloid excesses and how they hide the truth and about the hypocrisy of the original journalists (with the exception of blogger Frank Sfarzo)......
..... however, a subtext of the film is a complete repudiation of Mignini's case, a case which won the day in Massei's court and then was totally trashed in Hellmann's court. That's where the film ends, even though Winterbottom is fully aware of the March 2013 reversal of Hellmann. (Winterbottom also has a touching memorial to Meredith at the end, which tends to put the case back into the proper perspective; along with it's bias that AK and RS are totally innocent!)
But with most guilters these days virtually ignoring both Massei and Nencini, and defaulting to all the shenanigans of Mignini..... what better term would you suggest?
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
At this point there have been so many exonerations in the US at least, that its hard to justify not having some sort of formal national body that reviews convictions independently.
There does seem to be something narrow minded minded and a kind of fixation on closure that prevents courts from recognizing error.
When prosecutors argue against testing DNA evidence for example, that was unavailable at the time of trial and potentially exculpatory, and judges even entertain such arguments, it shows a far deeper problem then just one case, one jurisdiction, or one type of evidence.
Wrongful conviction is a tragedy, and there ought to be an opportunity for reason to re-enter the judicial process,even after a verdict has been achieved.
Innocence is worth defending.
But as many exonerations as we've seen in the US, it is rare that a case of such a high profile as this miscarriage of justice with Amanda and Raf, exposed in public to the most knowledgeable experts and rejected by ALL OF THEM, nonetheless continues to be affirmed by Italian judges on the basis of rank bias and medieval superstitious beliefs superseding well recognized scientific standards of evidence.
Italy has dug another hole for themselves with this case, They have to choose between unending condemnation and ridicule, or alternatively, giving over Giulaino Mignini and his enabling co-conspiring goon squad and judicial enablers to stand trial for their heinous and deceitful crimes.
The ECHR is a great backstop for these tragedies, but the time it takes to resolve these miscarriages of justice, is itself another cost, another injury, of prosecutorial and judicial error.
Saw interesting article in Italian yesterday discussing the prospects of double jeopardy. Went through a number of Italian cases, arguing that once a defendant has been acquitted, doesn't that demonstrate the presence of reasonable doubt, which is guaranteed in Italian law? Mentioned the Knox case, also the recent re-conviction of Stasi after being acquitted twice.
http://www.gqitalia.it/underground/...sco-stasi-condannato-come-succede-da-40-anni/
Here's a snippet, courtesy of google translate:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
It's exactly the reason to have a lawyer present.
There's a television promo for "Blue Bloods" here in our area, where a cop has a suspect in interrogation. The tag-line is, "If I ask you a question, if you're smart you'll answer." Every manual on interrogation ever produced says that the aim of the exercise is confession - indeed, the cops should not be interrogating unless they have in front of them someone who they honestly (maybe mistakenly, but certainly honestly) believe is the perp.
The suspect's job is to confirm (by confessing) the police's working theory. That's what the exercise is about!
It's why constitutional guarantees of the right of silence, representation, and translation exist. It's why if those rights are not protected in the Questura, then the information is not (supposed to be) admissible at trial.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Ha! As if on cue, Peter Quennell posted a diatribe two days ago on his own hate-site about Knox's psychopathology, as well as the demented actions of her supporters:
Pete said:
Pete said:
The one distinguishing feature of Migninians is that they lie unabashedly.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=1302&start=3500
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
Exactly. But of course the reason the police so often use the "we can help you" tactic is to make the suspect feel that the police somehow have his/her interests at heart. The truth, predictably, is very different: the police (as Bill also points out) are only ever interested in getting from the suspect information that can incriminate the suspect and/or anyone else.
I know a few people from uni days who have gone into criminal law, and they say that even some lawyers are far too keen for their clients to talk to the police. The best rule is this: whether you're factually guilty or innocent, never answer police questions unless you have an unimpeachable alibi that the police don't yet know about. Otherwise, nothing good can come to you from answering police questions: there's no upside and plenty of potential downside.
I believe it's blindingly obvious that one of Knox's and Sollecito's biggest faults between 2nd and 6th November 2007 was that they were far too keen to talk to the police. I even suspect that this in itself may have raised suspicions among the police/PM (or, more likely, confirmed a priori conclusions in their guilt). In reality, I think Knox and Sollecito were both hopelessly naive and idealistic. Knox, in particular, should have sought and received US consular assistance on day 1 (2nd November). She should have met with an appropriate criminal lawyer (i.e. not dalla Vedova) and she and the lawyer should have gone to the police in Perugia and said that Knox was of course willing and able to make a witness statement to tell the police all she knew. But this would take the form of one interview (perhaps of two hours maximum), plus one possible follow-up interview. Those interviews would take place within the first few days, and then Knox's lawyer should have denied the police access to her unless it was under arrest/caution.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
I genuinely think Quennell is mentally unstable. Prompted by this post, I took a look at his latest "article", which seeks to compare Knox with the lunatic pseudo-Muslim-cleric bloke in Sydney who took those hostages last week. He's strongly implying that Knox and that bloke are cut from the same cloth (with the attendant implicit suggestion that the good citizens of Seattle are in mortal danger if Knox is not extradited to Italy in handcuffs post haste).
And in that piece he again presents his warped, deluded fantasy of what he thinks was the dynamic of Knox vs Kercher in the cottage in the six weeks (six weeks!) that they lived together:
More than anyone in Perugia, Meredith tried to get along with Knox. But Knox showed no sign of a learning curve. The very heavy drug use went on, the sleeping with a drug dealer went on, the dirtiness and laziness around the house went on, and the noisy sex episodes with strangers through paper-thin walls went on.
This is a disturbed, sexually-maladjusted old man at work here. He has clearly constructed some sort of creepy sexual-protector image of himself in relation to Meredith Kercher (whom he had never met or heard of before her death). I genuinely, truly think that the man needs medical or psychiatric intervention. He's sick.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,960
the wounds on his hands are a key fact
Rudy Guede had cuts on his hands (a fact which should end the debate about who held the knife). There is a putative semen stain close to Meredith's body. There is his DNA in her body. There are his bloody shoe prints in the room and hall. Given these indications, Guede stabbed and sexually assaulted Meredith, and discussions about statistics are a distraction. Nencini's putting the knife into Amanda's hands is astonishing, to say the least!
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,960
Open discovery in general and with respect to DNA
Specifically with respect to discovery, some states go beyond Brady and insist upon open discovery. North Carolina is a state with open discovery, an important factor in the DNA forensics of the Duke lacrosse case. In addition, the American Bar Association standards are crystal clear: the EDFs are discoverable. There are plenty of things worthy of criticism with respect to the criminal justice systems in America, but the ABA standards on DNA evidence are not one of them. To the contrary, they represent the careful work of legal scholars who specialize in forensics, such as Paul Giannelli, and they could be adopted by any nation currently without such standards.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
Plus you can add Guede's palm print in the victim's blood on a pillow found next to and under the victim. And you can add the proven evidence of Guede going out dancing and clubbing within a few hours of the murder and then fleeing to Germany.
All of those things, put together, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guede was present at the time of the murder, and they also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guede's version of events (innocent bystander who came across a dying Meredith etc etc) is bogus and a lie. Therefore it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Guede actively participated in the murder of Kercher, and that he was responsible for stabbing her.
Unfortunately the various convicting courts have allowed themselves to become misled and bamboozled by the improper and unreliable forensics work in this case, together with an improper closeness to - and reliance upon - the prosecutors' flawed case. They have allowed themselves to be sold the lie that Sollecito's kitchen knife must have been used in the assault. And since that knife can definitively be shown to be incapable of causing at least one of the neck wounds, and also since the bloody knife imprint on the bed sheet (contrary to Mach's ludicrous assertion) does not match Sollecito's kitchen knife, they have erroneously concluded that at least two knives have to have been used in the murder. And since they believe that Sollecito's kitchen knife was one of these knives, and since Knox's DNA was found on the handle of that knife, they make the further leap of logic to conclude that Knox must have been the one using this knife during the murder.
You really couldn't make it up if it hadn't already happened in reality......
Almost all the guilters whose writings I have read are Migninians. They whole-heartedly support the theories of Mignini, and some are clearly slavish in their devotion to him. Theoretically, there may be Masseists and Nencinites, but there don't seem to be many of them. Have any been identified by their writings, which would support the differences in motivations of Massei or Nencini over the original claims of Mignini?
Probably Mignini's more extreme claims, such as psychopathology and the link to Halloween/Day of the Dead sex and murder, are more exciting and attention-grabbing than the relatively toned-down but still falsely-convicting Massei and Nencini motivations.
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Here's what you need to know. And it's not Frazier v Cupp.
Article 117 of the amended Italian constitution (2001) required that all Italian legislative bodies must use their powers "in compliance with the constitution and with the constraints deriving from EU legislation and international obligations".
On October 24th 2007, just over a week before Meredith Kercher was murdered, the Italian Constitutional Court issued two "Decisions", nos. 348 and 349, which decreed that the European Convention Human Rights had constitutional status following on from Article 117. Every other court, including Cassation from then on were obliged either to interpret Italian law in accordance with the Convention OR, if they were unable to do this, to refer each troublesome provision to the Constitutional Court, which, if necessary, would strike it down.
So, the European Convention Human Rights stands above ordinary law in Italy; it is itself to be regarded as part of the Constitution of the country. Where a domestic law is in conflict with the Convention, it is straightforward; the domestic law yields.
But there is a second part to this. Guidance was also given as to the meaning of Convention rights. They were not to be seen as mere textual rights, which domestic courts were free to interpret.
As Dr Liora Lazarus of Oxford University explained:
"In its 2007 decisions, the ItCC (Constitutional Court) recognised that the ECHR must be interpreted in the context of the judgments handed down by the ECtHR. It accepted that reference must be made to the autonomous meanings with which the ECtHR imbues certain concepts, and to the interpretations it gives the provisions of the ECHR. In this sense, ‘the constitutional scrutiny is not based on the text of the ECHR provision, but rather on the interpretation of the provision by the European Court of Strasbourg' (ItCC Decision 348)"
The Constitutional Court has therefore imposed two duties on Italian judges - to apply the law compliantly with the Convention, of course, but they cannot do this unless they follow closely, the developing case law from Strasbourg.
So, you, Hugo and Jackie and all the other colpevolisti will have to ask 'yummi' why it is that a "groupie", rather than 'yummi', your self appointed staff lawyer, has had to point out to you all that the ECHR stands above the Code within the Italian Constitution and that Ms Knox's rights are properly to be derived from the case law developed by the court AS IF IT WERE PART OF THAT CODE and that Italy has no choice in the matter.
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
I believe the highlighted suggests the existence of 'good faith' on the part of the convicting judges in formulating their opinions, a suggestion with which I respectfully disagree.
There are a few guilters who seem to have a general belief that Amanda Knox is guilty. Some of them also will mention Raffaele Sollecito, but the primary focus is Amanda. These "general belief" guilters often don't bother to be too specific why they have their belief in guilt. They may simply state that the Italian courts have found Amanda guilty. Of course, according to the Italian Constitution and the Convention, no one is judged guilty until the final sentence is issued. The "general belief" guilters may be even less knowledgeable about, or care less about, the legal issues than the Migninians and the theoretically existing Masseists and Nencinites.
The problem is that, at least in this case, all of the Italian courts have violated Italian law and the Italian Constitution (with the partial exception of the Hellmann court) regarding the rights of the defendants. They certainly have not recognized or followed the ECHR case-law, which they must do since Italy signed the Convention treaty in 1953, effective in 1955. The Italian judiciary is mired in despotic legal practices that recall those promulgated in the fascist 1930 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Yes you are right. That is the problem. It also one of the reasons why as part of the fallout from this case, Italian judges, prosecutors and dumbcops are going to have to attend training days.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
A similar argument I have seen elsewhere. . . . A common argument is that the person was convicted by a jury, therefore they are guilty. It is kind of infuriating when you are arguing about what is the actual evidence.
One item also that really bothers me is the glee I often read in the pro guilt crowd. Even if I thought they were guilty, I would take no pleasure is punishing them. It is just something that has to be part of society.
As well, the pro guilt side just seems unable to understand is that we honesty think that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are not guilty. Even if we are wrong, our position deserves respect that frankly we are not getting. We need to be shown while we are wrong. Maybe there would be less interst if Amanda was not fairly attractive but I don't care who you are, you do not deserve to be incarcerated for a crime you did not commit.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Was it the victim's blood or the knife-wielder's own blood.
- Status