Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[LondonJohn]

Personally, I still prefer the failing state of Italy rather than the failing state of the UK, if I have to chose.
If I were British I would think twice before spewing condescending judgements about things you don't know or about laughing of Italy. Just my opinion.

So you're claiming that Italy has NOT had a system of government (in all three of the executive, legislative and judicial branches) in disarray over the best part of the past 25 years (including the current farcical situation)? And you're claiming that the Italian banking system and the Italian economy are both in rude health?

Well, that's your prerogative I suppose

Italian prosecutor Henry Jorhn Woodcock (who happens to be also British citizen and familiar with the UK justice system) maintains that in terms of modernity - including rights of the accused - the Italian justice system is "light-years forward" compared to the British despite some suggest we shuld "parrot" it (so he says).

Ooh can you post this evidence, please?

 

[bagels]

Mach I asked Vixen this but didn't really get a response. How come us PIP are unable to see Knox's clear guilt, and this thing that is blocking us from seeing it, how do you know it is not affecting you?

It seems like by definition one side has to be drowning in delusion and bias, and from that side's perspective, it would always be the other. Isn't that interesting?

 

[Bill Williams]

Absolutely not.

They did not have what Nencini had. And they couldn't.

I simply do not believe you. Move on.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
But I'm not going to argue with you. My interest at this point is the rhetorical devices used to continue to argue a guilt scenario after they've been exonerated.
(...)

The only topic about which you can discuss with me is truths directly related to the case.
You can only discuss about me if you are interested in looking at case evidence related to the truth of who killed Meredith Kercher, or about the truth of related claims such as the content of trial documents and other sources.

 

[Machiavelli]

I simply do not believe you. Move on.

lol
There is very little "belief" that could be involved in this.
Belief has hardly to do with what can be verified.

The SC does not have trial documents and cannot access evidence. It's an elementary aspect of the Italian system that can be easily verified. You don't need to believe me. It's something that can be verified. It's in the law.

 

[Bill Williams]

The only topic about which you can discuss with me is truths directly related to the case.
You can only discuss about me if you are interested in looking at case evidence related to the truth of who killed Meredith Kercher, or about the truth of related claims such as the content of trial documents and other sources.

I am interested in rhetorical devices.

 

[Bill Williams]

lol
There is very little "belief" that could be involved in this.
Belief has hardly to do with what can be verified.

The SC does not have trial documents and cannot access evidence. It's an elementary aspect of the Italian system that can be easily verified. You don't need to believe me. It's something that can be verified. It's in the law.

Move on. The ISC in 2015 covered all this to the satisfaction of the juduciary of your country. For heaven's sake even Boninsegna called it an absolution.

 

[LondonJohn]

lol
There is very little "belief" that could be involved in this.
Belief has hardly to do with what can be verified.

The SC does not have trial documents and cannot access evidence. It's an elementary aspect of the Italian system that can be easily verified. You don't need to believe me. It's something that can be verified. It's in the law.

How can the Supreme Court rule on, for example, whether a lower court has followed the law correctly in assessing a certain piece of evidence, if it cannot have access to everything pertaining to that evidence (i.e. the evidence itself if it's physical evidence, all court testimony and examination/cross related to that evidence, and all court argumentation related to that evidence)?

 

[Machiavelli]

So you're claiming that Italy has NOT had a system of government (in all three of the executive, legislative and judicial branches) in disarray over the best part of the past 25 years (including the current farcical situation)? And you're claiming that the Italian banking system and the Italian economy are both in rude health?

Well, that's your prerogative I suppose

Last year I looked out for apartment prices in London. There was a lovely small apartment in Brixton, I really liked it. It was about 350k pounds IIRC.
You know as a child I used to live in Brixton and, well I really thought about it.
Now, Had I bought the apartment last year, I think I would have losted approzimately 70k € in... about 8 months I think, just due to the £ dump.
I'm afraid the British citizens may be poised at loosing the same figure of wealth in the near future.
Frankly, I'm afraid they may even loose Scotland and the UK as we know it may cease to exist.
I am not happy about that, and I am not happy about the masochistic turn the UK politics seems to have taken, and I almost can't recognize any more the UK I used to know in the current British society. The atmoshpere is changed, it really looks like a society "sleepwalking in segregation" to me and, while I do like London, I think I won't like to live there anymore.

Ooh can you post this evidence, please?

About a comment of Henry John Woodcock? Well, yes I can.

He's a great prosecutor, btw.

 

[bagels]

On all objections to the ISC's authority to acquit I quote a PGP post from 2013:

Clearly the Supreme Court had a different interpretation of its role than the one you posted.

There were zero PGP questioning the ISC's authority to object to Hellmann exclusively on points of evidence.

Well, you take the bitter with the sweet they say.

 

[Vixen]

That officer in question wasn't "disciplined and sacked", he just retired, according to this article.

And according to this one he seems to be quite p... that time is ticking away and the statute of limitations will kick in before he is able to clear his name...
Just for the record...

According to Candace Dempsey herself, Amanda appears only to have named Raffaele Argiro (_sp?) after another inmate reported him for protracted sexual harassment from 2006 to Nov 2007 (predating Amanda's time) after the kids were acquitted by Hellmann 2011.

In Dempsey's story there is no mention of his interest in her sex life being linked to the HIV result.

BRITISH TABLOID, AMANDA KNOX: “HE WAS FIXATED ON SEX.”

British tabloids raked Raffaele Argirò over the coals a few hours after the acquittal of Amanda Knox in October 2011. “He was obsessed with sex and wanted to know who the young American had relations with and what she liked to do under the sheets,” wrote the SUN newspaper, printing excerpts from the diary called the world’s most famous.

“At night I was summoned the third floor,” goes Amanda’s story, “in an empty office for a chat. When I repeated that I didn’t know anything about the murder of Meredith Kercher he brought up the subject of sex.” She reasoned that “he probably wanted to know who I had gone to bed with in order to give police the names of other suspects.”

Those “provocations” had “surprised” and “shocked” the Seattle student, always escorted to court for hearings by this same police officer, now retired after 30 years in uniform. He even accompanied her during her last trip from the prison cell, the endless night of October 3 when appeals judges freed the American held in Capanne since November 6, 2007.

Yet the lawyers for Amanda Knox say she never complained about the behavior of the inspector and had never mentioned his name to them.

This same Argirò has categorically denied the allegations, considering possible legal action. “He made ​​a sort of internal investigation to gather useful information in the investigation,” says his lawyer Daniela Paccoi, “But he denies talks that may have annoyed Amanda.”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2012/09/30/amanda-knox’s-prison-guard-investigated-for-rape/


The DAILY MAIL doesn't link it to the HIV test, either. That story seems to have become manufactured in Amanda's 2013 book.

The Sun reported that when approached, Argiro admitted asking Knox privately about how many boyfriends she had had.
However, the senior guard denied he initiated the intimate conversations, and said it was Knox who 'always' started talking about sex.
Quizzed: Argiro, seen here leading Knox into court for a hearing in July, reportedly questioned the American about Meredith Kercher's killing to 'test her personality'
Quizzed: Argiro, seen here leading Knox into court for a hearing in July, reportedly questioned the American about Meredith Kercher's killing to 'test her personality'
Argiro also reportedly confessed he was present when Knox underwent medical tests 'in case she did something wrong', before also admitting to quizzing her about Meredith's death in a bid to build the prosecution against her.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...essed-Foxy-Knoxys-sex-life.html#ixzz4WoufCMWj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It seems likely Amanda had a grudge against him anyway as he testified, see here. How easy to accuse someone whose reputation is in shreds in order to put in a vexatious claim for compensation for something that never happened (tricked by a doctor):

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Raffaele_Argirò's_Testimony_(English)

 

[Vixen]

The ISC has ruled definitely that the corpus of trial documents reveal an in competent investigation, and do not prove anything.

However if there's an agenda of simply picking and choosing various documents to prove a confirmation bias, go for it!

That is complete rubbish. The competence of the police was never an issue.

 

[bagels]

How easy to accuse someone whose reputation is in shreds in order to put in a vexation claim for compensation for something that never happened (tricked by a doctor):

It's actually not easy at all. First, you have to achieve a false positive on an HIV test, which is really hard. I think I read like only 1 in 200,000 people or so accomplish this amazing feat.

Let's give Amanda credit where it's due

 

[LondonJohn]

That is complete rubbish. The competence of the police was never an issue.

Ooooh the Italian Supreme Court begs to differ with you on that one.......

 

[Vixen]

I am interested in rhetorical devices.

Is there any rhetorical device you haven't tried, Bill? Oh, I know: good old-fashioned logic.

 

[Vixen]

How can the Supreme Court rule on, for example, whether a lower court has followed the law correctly in assessing a certain piece of evidence, if it cannot have access to everything pertaining to that evidence (i.e. the evidence itself if it's physical evidence, all court testimony and examination/cross related to that evidence, and all court argumentation related to that evidence)?

It has to be pleaded in an appeal. The Supreme Court is limited to the issues in that appeal. In this case, all that was still not res judicata were the issues Chieffi sent back down, i.e., the discredited Conti & Vecchiotti claims and the issue of one of the kids' star witnesses, Luca 'Lucy' Aviello (the other being, of course, child kidnapper and murderer, Alessi).

 

[LondonJohn]

It's actually not easy at all. First, you have to achieve a false positive on an HIV test, which is really hard. I think I read like only 1 in 200,000 people or so accomplish this amazing feat.

Let's give Amanda credit where it's due [qimg]http://b2.ifrm.com/253/91/0/e391245//e391245.gif[/qimg]

Well, for the type of ELISA test that Knox would most probably have had via the prison in 2007*, the false positive rates for low-risk subjects (which Knox was) were in the order of 0.05-0.1% - in other words, between one in 1,000 and one in 2,000.

But your overarching point still stands, of course. It's statistically very, very unlikely indeed that Knox ever actually had a false-positive ELISA test. Which - as you imply - also therefore throws up considerable questions and concerns over whether Knox was - accidentally (hmmm) or deliberately - given an incorrect notification of a false positive.


* The ELISA has since been improved to give a false-positive rate in the order of magnitude that you suggest.

 

[Machiavelli]

How can the Supreme Court rule on, for example, whether a lower court has followed the law correctly in assessing a certain piece of evidence, if it cannot have access to everything pertaining to that evidence (i.e. the evidence itself if it's physical evidence, all court testimony and examination/cross related to that evidence, and all court argumentation related to that evidence)?

But, in the sense you suggest, they can't. The SC cannot rule if the court has followed the law in assessing a certain piece of evidence under any possible aspect. The SC can only rule if the courts followed the law limited to a specific question raised by the submitting party about the reasoning of the lower court. And it is supposed to be a question that is admissible, that is a question not directly on the merits of the evidence itself. The question raised about the lower court work cannot be that generic "please assess whether the court followed the law correctly on assessing this", it must be limited on a specific objection. The submission must be on some specific allegation of violation by the lower court: the court allegedly made this specific error, the illogicality lies here, based on this specific document attached (quoted, or pages cited).

So for example the objection could be: "the court erred because in their judgement about this DNA finding they said the negative control was missing, they made a reasoning which omits the existence of the negative control which is in the papers" - and the document is attached, and the document with transcript or esle recording that it was put in the file are cited at specific pages. So the SC may decide "the reasoning is illogical because it contradicts this trial paper".
An example.
But the party court cannot just ask the SC court "please look into the papers and assess whether this DNA finding is reliable, because the lower court got it wrong".

 

[bagels]

But, in the sense you suggest, they can't. The SC cannot rule if the court has followed the law in assessing a certain piece of evidence under any possible aspect. The SC can only rule if the courts followed the law limited to a specific question raised by the submitting party about the reasoning of the lower court. And it is supposed to be a question that is admissible, that is a question not directly on the merits of the evidence itself. The question raised about the lower court work cannot be that generic "please assess whether the court followed the law correctly on assessing this", it must be limited on a specific objection. The submission must be on some specific allegation of violation by the lower court: the court allegedly made this specific error, the illogicality lies here, based on this specific document attached (quoted, or pages cited).

So for example the objection could be: "the court erred because in their judgement about this DNA finding they said the negative control was missing, they made a reasoning which omits the existence of the negative control which is in the papers" - and the document is attached, and the document with transcript or esle recording that it was put in the file are cited at specific pages. So the SC may decide "the reasoning is illogical because it contradicts this trial paper".
An example.
But the party court cannot just ask the SC court "please look into the papers and assess whether this DNA finding is reliable, because the lower court got it wrong".

Can you translate this for me: "E pur si muove"

 

[Vixen]

It's actually not easy at all. First, you have to achieve a false positive on an HIV test, which is really hard. I think I read like only 1 in 200,000 people or so accomplish this amazing feat.

Let's give Amanda credit where it's due [qimg]http://b2.ifrm.com/253/91/0/e391245//e391245.gif[/qimg]

That's nonsense. IIRC somebody claimed she had to 'wait two months' to find out it was negative. The DAILY MAIL article confirms the second test, as is the norm for a first test positive, was done within two weeks.

Thus we see how Amanda's manipulative and cunning self-serving story develops.