Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Harry Rag has started tweeting again - as offensive as ever.

Like Chucky Doll.

 

[Grinder]

I saw that empty post
Maybe I have not been following closely, but are they really that close to ending?

What is the probability the last post on PMF would be an empty one by a Bayesian mathematician?

 

[Grinder]

Harry Rag has started tweeting again - as offensive as ever.

Really? Where?

 

[Kauffer]

Really? Where?

Here's his account:

https://mobile.twitter.com/harryrag

 

[acbytesla]

Harry Rag has started tweeting again - as offensive as ever.

Eventually even he will give up. does it say how many followers he has? My bet is the number is dwindling.

 

[Samson]

What is the probability the last post on PMF would be an empty one by a Bayesian mathematician?

If you look carefully the post is a full stop. or "."

 

[Grinder]

If you look carefully the post is a full stop. or "."

Do you think that would change the probabilities?

 

[Samson]

Do you think that would change the probabilities?

Nature abhors a vacuum I understand.

 

[Bill Williams]

Eventually even he will give up. does it say how many followers he has? My bet is the number is dwindling.

Eventually I will give up! I had something to post just this minute but forgot what it was....

 

[LondonJohn]

If you look carefully the post is a full stop. or "."

Usually (or at least often) this would imply that the person originally wrote a substantive post, but then decided (for whatever reason) that they wanted to delete what they'd written. If the forum software does not allow them to entirely delete the post, the only option available would be to edit the post down to (in this case) a single full stop.

I'd conclude therefore that the likelihood here is that not-very-Thoughtful wrote something that she subsequently wished she hadn't written, so she erased the text in favour of a dot.

 

[LondonJohn]

There may well be additional ECHR applications to follow.

Yes. It's worth pointing out that just because the SC has (finally) acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the murder-related charges, that doesn't automatically mean that there were no human rights violations related to those charges, nor that Knox or Sollecito might pursue the investigation of those violations - and gain some additional restitution - via the ECHR.

Whether they and their legal teams actually want to go down that route that is another matter of course. In many ways, I'd suspect that Sollecito might be more likely to do so, if he doesn't feel he is adequately compensated for the four years he spent locked up (including periods in solitary confinement).

 

[Samson]

Usually (or at least often) this would imply that the person originally wrote a substantive post, but then decided (for whatever reason) that they wanted to delete what they'd written. If the forum software does not allow them to entirely delete the post, the only option available would be to edit the post down to (in this case) a single full stop.

I'd conclude therefore that the likelihood here is that not-very-Thoughtful wrote something that she subsequently wished she hadn't written, so she erased the text in favour of a dot.

I disagree. As HAL is gradually unplugged, I am sure that those with brains will stylise their exits. This post I see as exactly that. thoughtful is a class act in the potpourri. I was intrigued by her advertising her daughter's participation in a classical music group, named. I will always admire her for unravelling Pistorius in a manner that forcast Masipa.
LondonJohn, I see you demurr on Pistorius, but you must beat Icerat and thoughtful...

 

[Kauffer]

Yes. It's worth pointing out that just because the SC has (finally) acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the murder-related charges, that doesn't automatically mean that there were no human rights violations related to those charges, nor that Knox or Sollecito might pursue the investigation of those violations - and gain some additional restitution - via the ECHR.

Whether they and their legal teams actually want to go down that route that is another matter of course. In many ways, I'd suspect that Sollecito might be more likely to do so, if he doesn't feel he is adequately compensated for the four years he spent locked up (including periods in solitary confinement).

Really, it is un remedied violations that they would pursue and the excessive length of their trials is one that will not be remedied by Italy, for example. Other major issues, such as 'equality of arms' based on the non disclosure of evidence, are no longer relevant because they have been acquitted. Acquittal remedies most violations. But they can make any application they like - the ECHR will consider each individual claim on the merits.

The motivation report, it is assumed, will be issued around June 27 and so ECHR applications will be due in December - no more than six months later. Between, those dates, presumably, both Raffaele and Amanda will learn how much compensation they will get from Italy, assuming they pursue that.

I hope they do go to the ECHR. It is important that there are judgements on the record.

Of course, there is an argument that the ECHR has already done its job to a very great extent, if the ISC took note either before it met or as a result of Dalla Vedova mentioning it, of the European court's overarching jurisdiction. In other words, the ISC may have aquitted as much because they knew that guilty verdicts would eventually have to be vacated, as the judges themselves thought they should be aquitted.

The manner in which these trials were handled was never going to survive ECHR scrutiny and we discussed the pressure the ECHR might bring to bear on the ISC indirectly, either via an earlier decision in the calunnia case, (which did not happen), or by the judiciary itself calmly applying its case law to the conduct of the trials.

 

[Kauffer]

On the continuation or otherwise of a 'guilter' forum

I thought this was a nasty minded idea from 'MisterPink' on the possibility of a 2nd generation .org 'discussion' site:

"Needs to be hosted in the U.S. where the defamation laws are not overly burdensome."

 

[Kaosium]

Am I bad for saying, I miss Machiavelli?

He certainly knew how to stir the pot - as well as to argue a point, like one tiptoes down the sidelines of a football field....

I miss the guy. He was a loyal friend to Mignini as well as to Andrea Vogt.

I agree. He was defending his own, and I know what the pain of disillusionment is like. Been there, done that.

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought this was a nasty minded idea from 'MisterPink' on the possibility of a 2nd generation .org 'discussion' site:

"Needs to be hosted in the U.S. where the defamation laws are not overly burdensome."

Hosting in the US will not work, by itself, to prevent law suits in jurisdictions where the web-site is visible (basically everywhere).

 

[Kauffer]

Eventually even he will give up. does it say how many followers he has? My bet is the number is dwindling.

Harry Rag is pathetic - on March 29th, he retweeted a tweet sent by some other guilter to Steve Moore, Jim Clemente AND Amanda, asking them to consider a "review of some of the AK evidence ". This review turns out to be one of Selene Nelson's articles!

 

[Kauffer]

Hosting in the US will not work, by itself, to prevent law suits in jurisdictions where the web-site is visible (basically everywhere).

It seems to me that there is enough traction in the Defamation Act to go after website operators effectively - the act, whilst not making them responsible for each alleged defamation, demands their compliance with efforts to identify alleged perpetrators. Since these sites are not income generators but "labours of love" for the operators, they can be swamped by notices they must respond to and may choose to close down.

But also:

"Section 5 of the Act provides for the operator’s defence against a defamation claim to be defeated if you can show that it has acted with malice in relation to the posting of the statement, and collusion might therefore affect the availability of the defence."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269139/defamation-faqs.pdf

 

[analemma]

Really, it is un remedied violations that they would pursue and the excessive length of their trials is one that will not be remedied by Italy, for example. Other major issues, such as 'equality of arms' based on the non disclosure of evidence, are no longer relevant because they have been acquitted. Acquittal remedies most violations. But they can make any application they like - the ECHR will consider each individual claim on the merits.

The motivation report, it is assumed, will be issued around June 27 and so ECHR applications will be due in December - no more than six months later. Between, those dates, presumably, both Raffaele and Amanda will learn how much compensation they will get from Italy, assuming they pursue that.

I hope they do go to the ECHR. It is important that there are judgements on the record.

Of course, there is an argument that the ECHR has already done its job to a very great extent, if the ISC took note either before it met or as a result of Dalla Vedova mentioning it, of the European court's overarching jurisdiction. In other words, the ISC may have aquitted as much because they knew that guilty verdicts would eventually have to be vacated, as the judges themselves thought they should be aquitted.

The manner in which these trials were handled was never going to survive ECHR scrutiny and we discussed the pressure the ECHR might bring to bear on the ISC indirectly, either via an earlier decision in the calunnia case, (which did not happen), or by the judiciary itself calmly applying its case law to the conduct of the trials.

Kauffer,
I agree that the ECHR had an influence upon the case that led to the result we saw on 3/27/15, but I see the reasoning behind the ISC decision a little differently.
It seemed to me that the way things were going there would probably be an affirmation of both cases, followed by a submittal of all cases to the ECHR. After the conviction, I foresaw a long extradition fight that would eventually be lost and both of them having to spend perhaps five years in prison while the case worked its way at a snail’s pace thru the ECHR.
The eventual thunderous ECHR decision would then overturned the convictions and reveal to everyone, no matter how stupid, that everything the Italian police and courts did was aimed at protecting Italian butts.
The US State Department would just HAVE to say to Italy “Look here, we extradited an innocent American citizen at great domestic political expense to conform to our treaty. Now we have egg on our face because everyone realizes that we were too stupid to see that everything that your court system has been doing for the past 15 years is ONLY to protect some psychotic Italian police and prosecutors from facing justice.”
The State Department would demand the release of the mistreated American citizen and hope that the sorry mess would not endanger relations between the two countries.
I admit allowing this scenario to develop would require incredible stupidity on the part of the Italian powers that be, but the stubborn and CYA tone of the ISC acquittal and Nencini conviction seemed to justify this disappointing assessment of the Italian judiciary.
JMO

 

[analemma]

Harry Rag is pathetic - on March 29th, he retweeted a tweet sent by some other guilter to Steve Moore, Jim Clemente AND Amanda, asking them to consider a "review of some of the AK evidence ". This review turns out to be one of Selene Nelson's articles!

Yes SN, Barbi, and CH have posted some increadably evil and obviously out of date rants in the last week: I am amazed that their editors, if they have any, allow them to continue with these zombie dances.