The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Numbers]

His {OJ Simpson's} advocate, Barry Scheck, is making $'millions out of calling vacated convictions 'exoneration'.

Citation, please, to support your quoted statement regarding Barry Scheck.

Not that your statement about Scheck is directly relevant to the topic of this thread, but if you are attempting a diversion because you have no thread-topic relevant information to post, at least provide a citation to lend your calumny some credibility.

First thing that comes up on the search engines:




There is $'000's to be made out of 'Innocence Projects'. Let's face it, a large percentage of 'exonerees' who were released on a 'technicality' are simply hoping to cash in.
Why else is Amanda on the bandwagon falsely claiming she 'wrongfully served four years' for a serious crime she remains convicted of. It makes a mockery of the genuinely innocent who cannot afford the likes of Scheck or Zellner.

These attorneys are only going to take on cases where they can take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis.

http://observer.com/2012/06/best-defense-lawyer-ever-barry-c-scheck-buys-in-chelsea/

.... Have these people {a listing of exonerees in the US} accepted speaking fees or made money from writing books? Perhaps some have, but I don't know any details. Do such payments begin to cover their lost years in prison or their struggles to reintegrate into society? If we even have to formulate this question, we have gone off the rails.

{Vixen,} Your response is shockingly irrelevant and demonstrates a lack of research on the topic you have brought up.

The average cost of an apartment in Manhattan is over $2 million*. Scheck is a professor at Cardozo law school and would make a substantial salary** simply from that, so obtaining a mortgage for $745 thousand or so would not be unusual.

Regarding the Innocence Project, Wikipedia states:

"The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal organization that is committed to exonerating wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing and to reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld.

To date, the work of the Innocence Project has led to the freeing of 343 wrongfully convicted people based on DNA, including 20 who spent time on death row, and the finding of 147 real perpetrators. ...

The Innocence Project receives 45 percent of its funding from individual contributions, 30 percent from foundations, 15 percent from an annual benefit dinner, 7 percent from the Cardozo School of Law, and the rest from corporations."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project#Funding

Thus, your calumnies are in error in a number of respects, for example: 1) the Innocence Project relies on DNA testing, not technicalities, to uncover wrongful convictions; 2) its DNA testing has determined the individuals actually guilty in a number of cases; 3) Innocence Project funding is based on largely on charitable contributions from individuals, charitable foundations, and corporations, and does not rely on client payments or government settlements.


* Source: The Average Price of a Manhattan Apartment Is Now Over $2 Million
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/4/1/11345882/average-cost-of-manhattan-apartment

**Law Professors in the US have a salary range of about $80,000 to $250,000 per year; median is about $133,000 (Source: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Professor_of_Law/Salary)

A professor with significant experience teaching at an elite institution, such as Barry Scheck, would likely earn an above-median salary.

Do refer to the riches lawyers made out of the OJ Simspon (who was almost certainly guilty of murder) case:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/31/us/meter-s-ticking-for-costly-simpson-defense.html

And also:


https://www.philanthropy.com/article/A-Thirtysomething-Billionaire/157613

1) Apparently, you are not aware that "the Innocence Project does not use legal technicalities to challenge convictions; the Project accepts only cases in which newly discovered scientific evidence can potentially prove that a convicted person is factually innocent."


2) "Bandwagon"? More of your hyperbole. She is speaking as a MURDER exoneree, not as a person convicted of calumny.

3) Wrong again! The Innocence Project is a pro-bono organization. They do not "take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis" or, in fact, any payment. Stop posting lies.

Think about it. Had she properly and legally applied for the TRP, which AIUI takes months to process by CBSA, then she is admitting she is a convicted felon. IOW she is going to the Innocence Conference under false pretences knowingly, having declared she is convicted of a serious crime (i.e, >three years custody).

Is it ethical to mislead young undergraduate law students at Windsor Uni Law School that she was 'wrongfully convicted' and 'wrongfully imprisoned' for four years, when her conviction is perfectly sound and upheld even by Hellmann and underlined by Marasca.

Would you want YOUR kid to be photographed unknowingly with a properly convicted person, which his or her law school has defrauded him or her into thinking, 'this is an innocent person and a typical wrongfully convicted case'.

... {U Windsor is} teaching him or her that a lack of ethics (integrity) is OK and normal conduct.

Pro-bono refers to free advocacy. However, people like Kellner and Scheck, whilst they might claim to be pro-bono, really mean 'contingency fee' or 'no win/no fee'. This is why it is not worth their while taking on a case, pro-bono or not - unless there is a possibility of a handsome payout, of which they will make sure their engagement letter sets out how much they will take as their share of any successful proceeds.

Don't believe me? So how come Zellner only takes on high-profile cases, such as Stephen Avery, Ryan Ferguson or Mario Cascarios?

Well, take a look at her Revenues. Big $$$'s for her.

I would question its judgement. It has invited a properly convicted person to come and deliver a talk as an 'exoneree' 'wrongfully convicted' with the carrot of 'credit to your undergraduate module'. Of course people will attend, maybe even write a report to get the accreditation.

It is totally immoral to invite a convicted criminal posing as an 'exoneree' and encourage 18-year old law students into believing , 'anything goes'.

You really do just pull this stuff out of your lower colon, don't you? Pro-bono does not mean "free advocacy". "A lawyer's free legal service to these types of clients is designated as pro bono service." (Legal Dictionary)

Your claim that "whilst they might claim to be pro-bono, really mean 'contingency fee' or 'no win/no fee'" is a great example of an assfact. You cannot provide a shred of evidence for this but that doesn't stop you from just throwing it out. It doesn't work.

No, I don't believe you because what you claimed is patently false. Not only does she {Zellner} do many pro-bono cases, most of her clients are not well-known or only became so AFTER their exonerations. You obviously did not do your homework before posting your falsehoods.

"Because of the odds against getting a conviction reversed and the incredible amount of work involved, few lawyers will take a case like Ferguson's, certainly not pro bono.* Kathleen Zellner, a civil rights attorney with a reputation as a fighter, did both.* Last week, Ferguson became her 15th wrongfully convicted client to walk out of prison." (CBS News)


"Since Zellner began her law firm in January 1991, she has obtained the exoneration of 18 wrongfully convicted men, handling many of these cases pro bono" (Wikipedia)

" In addition, her firm has provided $1 million in pro bono hours and expenses to clients in the past two years. (Chicago Lawyer Magazine)

....
The problem of coerced false confessions and statements is not confined to Italy. Vixen falsely claims the Innocence Project and its lawyers, such as Barry Scheck, engage in "innocence fraud" for financial gain. The truth is that the Innocent Project lawyers work pro bono to assist the wrongfully convicted and a major part of the Innocence Project effort is working to achieve reform of police and judicial procedures to prevent future wrongful convictions.

Please do not quote me out of context. I said some cases could be seen as innocence fraud, such as a killer pretending to be the victim.

Vixen posted #2823:

"Please do not quote me out of context. I said some cases could be seen as innocence fraud, such as a killer pretending to be the victim."

The cases - by which you are necessarily referring to legal cases - have lawyers representing clients. If your oddly worded statement, "a killer pretending to be the victim" is taken to mean that a defendant or a convicted person claims to be not guilty, then that person in the US has (except in cases when the defendant or convict is his own lawyer) a lawyer. So you are strongly implying that lawyers in such cases are involved in "innocence fraud".

You referred to Zellner and Scheck and associated them with alleged unethical behavior and alleged improperly obtained income; for example, Scheck's fees from the Simpson case.

I see. So you think by twisting my words you can present me as saying something really stupid such as, 'it is illegal for lawyers in the US to represent their clients'.

Please desist making your ridiculous misrepresentation.

Amanda does not qualify as 'exonerated' by your own definition which you posted here from Uni Michigan (?)

I did not say Scheck 'improperly obtained income' from OJ Simpson'. Stop twisting my words.

Amanda is touring the country claiming to be 'exonerated' and 'innocent' and AFAIAC this is innocence fraud, as she has not been found innocent, is not exonerated, and, in fact, she remains a convicted criminal.

AFAIAA Neither Zellner nor Scheck is representing Amanda.

Vixen, I never claimed that you had posted that "it is illegal for lawyers in the US to represent their clients". I posted that you are implying that lawyers in "certain cases" - the ones where "the killer claims to be the victim" - are committing "innocence fraud", and that you were (seemingly) claiming or implying that in particular of the Innocence Project and Scheck.

The posts I have quoted above support my position on your statements.

You are simply twisting away from what you had stated in your earlier posts as you are confronted by the facts. That is just another of you debating tricks that you employ when your arguments fail, which they must because they are based on falsehoods and false assumptions.

 

[Stacyhs]

Perhaps he is just using a figure of speech when he talks about stabbing Amanda in the throat cutting the carotid artery? Or maybe he just means "obstructing"?

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content redacted.

It was a typo.

 

[Numbers]

BTW, if anyone is curious about the role of Barry Scheck in the OJ Simpson case, he was one of (about) ten lawyers hired by Simpson, and, with Peter Neufeld, specialized in the legal aspects of DNA evidence:

"Simpson was represented by a very high-profile defense team (also referred to as the "Dream Team"), which was initially led by Robert Shapiro and subsequently led by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

I won't attempt to sort out in this post all of the possible reasons for Vixen's diversionary introduction of canards against Scheck (beginning in post #2691) into a thread about the Knox - Sollecito case. It may be an attempt to show - contrary to fact - that those who seek to reverse wrongful convictions are unethically seeking compensation from such cases, and then falsely claiming Amanda Knox, who has become an advocate against wrongful conviction, is similarly motivated.

 

[Myriad]

So far in this part (24) of the thread, I've learned that the word "legal" in the phrase "legal fact" is like the word "virtual" in "virtual reality" or "alternative" in "alternative medicine" or "atonal" in "atonal music." Essentially a synonym for "not."

 

[bagels]

Mods please edit all PIP posts (including mine) to "Vixen have you provided evidence Hellmann was bribed" and then edit all of Vixen's posts to "no I have not, so we have nothing to discuss."

IMO it will make things more concise and readable while retaining the same content.

 

[Bill Williams]

So far in this part (24) of the thread, I've learned that the word "legal" in the phrase "legal fact" is like the word "virtual" in "virtual reality" or "alternative" in "alternative medicine" or "atonal" in "atonal music." Essentially a synonym for "not."

Ain't that the truth.......

 

[Numbers]

I've started a little research project on "innocence fraud" as a term used in the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case and I'm seeking any generally-accepted legal or other definition of the term.

My preliminary search using Google did not find a legal definition for "innocence fraud". There do seem to be some groups in favor of the death penalty in the US, or perhaps more accurately who are opposed to those seeking to abolish the death penalty in the US, who use the term. Is there any other general use? Is the term a meme of the guilters, used on the sites that wrongfully maintain that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, even after their definitive acquittal by Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation?

My first result of a search of relevant ISF/JREF thread continuations is that the term appears to have been first used by Vixen in post #1426 of Continuation 18 on 13 September 2015. Is anyone aware of an earlier use of the term on ISF/JREF?

Here are the texts where "innocence fraud" is first used in ISF/JREF (insofar as I have determined; bolding of "innocence fraud" is in the original posts); the first group of three are in Continuation 18:

Posted by Vixen, #1426, 13 Sep 2015

"The biggest deceivers of all are the paid advertisers hired to perpetrate innocence fraud.

Lying about soap powder is one thing, but pretending a criminal is innocent is the ultimate unethical and immoral act."

Posted by Vixen, #1463 13 Sep 2015

"Ah, so your source is paid shill and revisionist Candace Dempsey. End of conversation. One of the worst dissemblers of all, made even nastier by her gaining personal profit from innocence fraud." {The name "Candace Dempsey" was in a very large font.}

Posted by Vixen, #2803 23 Sep 2015

"So even the FOA believe Bruno-Marasca is innocence fraud." {Marasca was the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) panel's president, and Bruno the panel's reporting judge, for the CSC panel that acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher.}

The next group of posts using "innocence fraud" are from ISF thread continuation 19:

Posted by Vixen, #571 26 Nov 2015

"I see. Amanda has been groomed by the Friends of Amanda to claim she was subjected to the Reid techniques, and her book was written with this strategy in mind.

Is this what is meant by "innocence fraud"?"

Posted by Bill Williams, #586 26 Nov 2015

"LOL.

No one needs to claim it. It simply is what Anna Donnino testified at trial. It's nowhere near "innocence fraud". Donnino plied her "mediator's" trade five years before Knox's book came out.

One thing is clear. You will not acknowledge at all that the PLE conducted a fraudulent, "amnesiac" investigation."

Posted by Vixen, #619 28 Nov 2015

"Amanda has all the evidence of being groomed by her PR. In her statements at the questura, she said she understood the police were under stress and only doing their job. In her Prison Diary she herself wrote she hadn't been beaten up by anyone. She was groomed to make all sorts of claims as a form of innocence fraud. The reality is, it was a bog standard murder investigation enquiry. These are hard-nosed cops not airline cabin crew."

Posted by Bill Williams, #621 28 Nov 2015

"Innocence fraud? Where do you come up with this stuff.

Both she and Sollecito were acquitted. Since Italy regards all people charged with crimes to be innocent - at every step of their process - until the final, definitive ruling of Cassation.....

..... they were never anything other than innocent.

What's with these silly terms, "innocence fraud"? Your argument since March 2015 is not with anyone other than the Italian Supreme Court and the judiciary there."

Posted by Vixen, #623 28 Nov 2015

"Quintavalle did not describe the clothes Amanda was wearing outside the cottage, white skirt, etc (BTW where WAS Amanda's coat, that she had to borrow Raff's?) He described accurately, the clothes police found lying on her bed; facts he could not have known before the trial.

The problem with innocence fraud is that in the mind of an innocence fraudster, "every cop is a criminal" - Jodi Arias' scribblings are full of this type of stuff, how all the jurors except the rogue one who saved her from the death sentence, were - surprise, surprise - all thoroughly corrupt."

Posted by Bill Williams, #626 28 Nov 2015

"Please answer the question. Considering that Italian law not only now considers her innocent - it was a status she went into the trials with, and acc. to Italian law she never had to forfeit...... so neither she nor Raffaele were ever at any time guilty of murder......

In what sense is this "innocence fraud"? Are you calling Marasca and Bruno criminals?"

Posted by Vixen, #641 28 Nov 2015

"Bruno and Maresca did not find the pair innocent, nor were they exonerated.

They gave their reasons as insufficiency of evidence." {This post doesn't use the term "innocence fraud" but may be helpful in understanding the definition as used by Vixen.}

Posted by Vixen, #721 29 Nov 2015

"If Curt had paid his child support and not shut out Amanda and her sister from their bedroom at Cassandra's, causing Amanda to refuse to visit, maybe she would not have had all the rage issues causing her to go off the rails and attack her wholly innocent roommate.

Curt wasn't doing her any favours by persuading her to go on the innocence fraud road."

ETA: There are additional uses of the term "innocence fraud" in more recent continuations, but the above uses may be sufficient to gain some understanding of the term.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, I never claimed that you had posted that "it is illegal for lawyers in the US to represent their clients". I posted that you are implying that lawyers in "certain cases" - the ones where "the killer claims to be the victim" - are committing "innocence fraud", and that you were (seemingly) claiming or implying that in particular of the Innocence Project and Scheck.

The posts I have quoted above support my position on your statements.

You are simply twisting away from what you had stated in your earlier posts as you are confronted by the facts. That is just another of you debating tricks that you employ when your arguments fail, which they must because they are based on falsehoods and false assumptions.

Rubbish. Anybody is entitled to take on the services of a lawyer. To claim I said otherwise is ridiculous.

Let's face it, Zellner has only taken on Steven Avery because it is high profile. This is undeniable. There was a banner headline I saw that she had earned $2m, 'and it's only February'.

Please don't insult us all by claiming this is pro bono for a poor underprivileged mite. I saw the Netflix film and despite the heavy bias towards the defence (being a defence-backed film) it was obvious he was fairly convicted, with a fair trial.

The Amanda Knox Netflix film, was similarly misleading to viewers, and the claim she is exonerated is a false one.

If Windsor Law School advertised Amanda as legally exonerated, sorry, they are deliberately misleading their students. She is fairly convicted of criminal Calunnia and her three year's sentence for this is not 'wrongful imprisonment', nor the one year in remand (cf the Florence verdict Feb 2017 dismissing Raff's claim for compo, saying his behaviour was gross misconduct and he brought his remand on himself).

Do you understand the argument, now?

 

[Vixen]

BTW, if anyone is curious about the role of Barry Scheck in the OJ Simpson case, he was one of (about) ten lawyers hired by Simpson, and, with Peter Neufeld, specialized in the legal aspects of DNA evidence:

"Simpson was represented by a very high-profile defense team (also referred to as the "Dream Team"), which was initially led by Robert Shapiro and subsequently led by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

I won't attempt to sort out in this post all of the possible reasons for Vixen's diversionary introduction of canards against Scheck (beginning in post #2691) into a thread about the Knox - Sollecito case. It may be an attempt to show - contrary to fact - that those who seek to reverse wrongful convictions are unethically seeking compensation from such cases, and then falsely claiming Amanda Knox, who has become an advocate against wrongful conviction, is similarly motivated.

Why is Amanda hanging around Innocence Conferences, unless she is hoping it'll rub off by association?

As a Court of Law, Florence, states, it is a legal fact Amanda was at the crime scene, during the crime. The acquittal was not an exoneration.

Many facts
connected with the complete reconstruction of the event, exclude that Guede could have
acted alone (Page 26 of the cited decision), and at the same time “as for the whereabouts of
Amanda Knox, whose presence in the dwelling, site of the murder, is clearly certain in the case,
consistent with her admissions, contained also in her hand-written account.” (Page 45 of the
decision). In regard to Sollecito “The picture of the evidence which emerges from the
impugned judgment is marked by intrinsic unresolved contradictions...It remains,
nonetheless, a strong suspicion that he was actually present in the house at Via della
Pergola on the night of the murder, but at a time, however, that cannot be determined. On
the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly
credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision) If therefore the fact that Knox
was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed
constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and
that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were
doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning. It is logical to
assume that she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate, would have been greatly distraught, a
circumstance which would have allowed Sollecito to remember well what happened that
night even if he had never set foot in the house where the serious crime had happened.

The Florence Appeal Court, composed of the judges
-dottoressa Silvia Martuscelli, Presiding Judge
-dottoressa Paola Masi, Recording Judge
-Dotoressa Anna Favi, Judge
having met in Chambers, and having heard the parties attending the hearing on 27
January 2017

The law courts actually state, ' she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she
knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate'.

Public domain. Legal fact.

 

[Vixen]

I've started a little research project on "innocence fraud" as a term used in the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case and I'm seeking any generally-accepted legal or other definition of the term.

My preliminary search using Google did not find a legal definition for "innocence fraud". There do seem to be some groups in favor of the death penalty in the US, or perhaps more accurately who are opposed to those seeking to abolish the death penalty in the US, who use the term. Is there any other general use? Is the term a meme of the guilters, used on the sites that wrongfully maintain that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, even after their definitive acquittal by Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation?

My first result of a search of relevant ISF/JREF thread continuations is that the term appears to have been first used by Vixen in post #1426 of Continuation 18 on 13 September 2015. Is anyone aware of an earlier use of the term on ISF/JREF?

Here are the texts where "innocence fraud" is first used in ISF/JREF (insofar as I have determined; bolding of "innocence fraud" is in the original posts); the first group of three are in Continuation 18:

Posted by Vixen, #1426, 13 Sep 2015

"The biggest deceivers of all are the paid advertisers hired to perpetrate innocence fraud.

Lying about soap powder is one thing, but pretending a criminal is innocent is the ultimate unethical and immoral act."

Posted by Vixen, #1463 13 Sep 2015

"Ah, so your source is paid shill and revisionist Candace Dempsey. End of conversation. One of the worst dissemblers of all, made even nastier by her gaining personal profit from innocence fraud." {The name "Candace Dempsey" was in a very large font.}

Posted by Vixen, #2803 23 Sep 2015

"So even the FOA believe Bruno-Marasca is innocence fraud." {Marasca was the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) panel's president, and Bruno the panel's reporting judge, for the CSC panel that acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher.}

The next group of posts using "innocence fraud" are from ISF thread continuation 19:

Posted by Vixen, #571 26 Nov 2015

"I see. Amanda has been groomed by the Friends of Amanda to claim she was subjected to the Reid techniques, and her book was written with this strategy in mind.

Is this what is meant by "innocence fraud"?"

Posted by Bill Williams, #586 26 Nov 2015

"LOL.

No one needs to claim it. It simply is what Anna Donnino testified at trial. It's nowhere near "innocence fraud". Donnino plied her "mediator's" trade five years before Knox's book came out.

One thing is clear. You will not acknowledge at all that the PLE conducted a fraudulent, "amnesiac" investigation."

Posted by Vixen, #619 28 Nov 2015

"Amanda has all the evidence of being groomed by her PR. In her statements at the questura, she said she understood the police were under stress and only doing their job. In her Prison Diary she herself wrote she hadn't been beaten up by anyone. She was groomed to make all sorts of claims as a form of innocence fraud. The reality is, it was a bog standard murder investigation enquiry. These are hard-nosed cops not airline cabin crew."

Posted by Bill Williams, #621 28 Nov 2015

"Innocence fraud? Where do you come up with this stuff.

Both she and Sollecito were acquitted. Since Italy regards all people charged with crimes to be innocent - at every step of their process - until the final, definitive ruling of Cassation.....

..... they were never anything other than innocent.

What's with these silly terms, "innocence fraud"? Your argument since March 2015 is not with anyone other than the Italian Supreme Court and the judiciary there."

Posted by Vixen, #623 28 Nov 2015

"Quintavalle did not describe the clothes Amanda was wearing outside the cottage, white skirt, etc (BTW where WAS Amanda's coat, that she had to borrow Raff's?) He described accurately, the clothes police found lying on her bed; facts he could not have known before the trial.

The problem with innocence fraud is that in the mind of an innocence fraudster, "every cop is a criminal" - Jodi Arias' scribblings are full of this type of stuff, how all the jurors except the rogue one who saved her from the death sentence, were - surprise, surprise - all thoroughly corrupt."

Posted by Bill Williams, #626 28 Nov 2015

"Please answer the question. Considering that Italian law not only now considers her innocent - it was a status she went into the trials with, and acc. to Italian law she never had to forfeit...... so neither she nor Raffaele were ever at any time guilty of murder......

In what sense is this "innocence fraud"? Are you calling Marasca and Bruno criminals?"

Posted by Vixen, #641 28 Nov 2015

"Bruno and Maresca did not find the pair innocent, nor were they exonerated.

They gave their reasons as insufficiency of evidence." {This post doesn't use the term "innocence fraud" but may be helpful in understanding the definition as used by Vixen.}

Posted by Vixen, #721 29 Nov 2015

"If Curt had paid his child support and not shut out Amanda and her sister from their bedroom at Cassandra's, causing Amanda to refuse to visit, maybe she would not have had all the rage issues causing her to go off the rails and attack her wholly innocent roommate.

Curt wasn't doing her any favours by persuading her to go on the innocence fraud road."

ETA: There are additional uses of the term "innocence fraud" in more recent continuations, but the above uses may be sufficient to gain some understanding of the term.

Your assumptions fall at the first hurdle, as I am not pro-death penalty (except for treason, terrorism and aggravated murder [for example, serial killers and child killers]). I don't agree with life without parole as I think people do reform over the years and should be given at least a parole hearing, after, say, nine years, as in the UK. I am all for prison reform. Conditions are brutal and only help serve recidivism. Norway's treatment of Anders Brevik, is a brave one, given the enormity of his crimes.

Innocence fraud IMV is where a person who would otherwise have confessed, or served their time cooperatively, are encouraged to pretend they are innocent. This can be by family (who do not want the shame) and egregiously, lawyers who can see a lot of money in it for themselves, given the size of compensation should they be successful. The fraud goes beyond normal defence tactics, such as picking holes in police tactics, trying to find flaws in the forensic evidence (cf OJ Simpson and his glove) claiming due process was not followed, etc.

It extends to demanding the evidence must be 100% certain and forcing the police and the courts to unreasonably jump through hoops proving, for example, the DNA obtained did not come from an alleged 'rogue policeman, who broke into a phial already in storage for a previous crime', or 'the police planted evidence because they they were snobs and thought the family were trash'.

A whole load of taxpayers money is spent on futile exercises, which should have been dealt with at trial level. It is what a trial is for.

One reason this industry flourishes is because sentencing in the USA is so harsh, it becomes 'worth it' as the convicted person has nothing to lose, except 'life without parole', and there is a whole underclass who are in jail for the 'three strikes' rule and serving life for crimes that normally would attract a sentence of no more than two years, if that.

The US penal system encourages innocence fraud because of (a) its harsh, almost inhumane penitentiary system, and (b) the huge levels of compensation that can be claimed if you can get your conviction thrown out.

Now, what applies in the USA, does not apply in Italy. Italy has two automatic appeals, 50% of which are successful. There is parole (Rudy is out 100% next year - he is out on parole now).

Thus the FOA alarm over the fair trial of Amanda and Raff is misguided, misconceived and way over the top in terms of reasonableness.

 

[toto]

Why is Amanda hanging around Innocence Conferences, unless she is hoping it'll rub off by association?

As a Court of Law, Florence, states, it is a legal fact Amanda was at the crime scene, during the crime. The acquittal was not an exoneration.



The Florence Appeal Court, composed of the judges
-dottoressa Silvia Martuscelli, Presiding Judge
-dottoressa Paola Masi, Recording Judge
-Dotoressa Anna Favi, Judge
having met in Chambers, and having heard the parties attending the hearing on 27
January 2017

The law courts actually state, ' she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she
knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate'.

Public domain. Legal fact.

She was found not guilty like nearly everyone else I am prepared to bet, in the democratic world who is not found not guilty in their respective courts of law, and certainly not dissimilar to those found not guilty in England and Wales. This is why literally only about seven people on the internet still dispute the truth of this and why no (repeat: no) mainstream journalistic publication in Italy or elsewhere hints at the possibility that AK and RS are guilty of the crimes for which they have been conclusively found not guilty. They have been acquitted. They are not guilty. They did not commit the act. Also Amanda has a pending case with the ECHR. Also AK did not slander the police when she accused them of bad treatment.

 

[toto]

Rubbish. Anybody is entitled to take on the services of a lawyer. To claim I said otherwise is ridiculous.

Let's face it, Zellner has only taken on Steven Avery because it is high profile. This is undeniable. There was a banner headline I saw that she had earned $2m, 'and it's only February'.

Please don't insult us all by claiming this is pro bono for a poor underprivileged mite. I saw the Netflix film and despite the heavy bias towards the defence (being a defence-backed film) it was obvious he was fairly convicted, with a fair trial.

The Amanda Knox Netflix film, was similarly misleading to viewers, and the claim she is exonerated is a false one.

If Windsor Law School advertised Amanda as legally exonerated, sorry, they are deliberately misleading their students. She is fairly convicted of criminal Calunnia and her three year's sentence for this is not 'wrongful imprisonment', nor the one year in remand (cf the Florence verdict Feb 2017 dismissing Raff's claim for compo, saying his behaviour was gross misconduct and he brought his remand on himself).

Do you understand the argument, now?

I believe RS is appealing. We have all seen the twists and turns of the whole saga.

 

[Vixen]

We have already discussed months ago the "autopsy pic" story that you brought up . I even posted the picture that you originally falsely claimed was a "naked" photo of Meredith but which was, in fact, highly edited to show nothing graphic. The picture that you claim came from "private autopsy photos" came from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock blog and was available to the public. But you just keep on repeating otherwise. I'm sure you'll convince someone it's the truth eventually. Just not us.

As for the rest of your post, nothing that you mention even comes close to the threatening posts to "harm" Amanda that Rhodes has made.
I guess Rhodes is the type of person that TJMK, PMF, and TMofMK attracts.

I'd think anyone would be "outraged" by threats to harm someone, regardless of which side of this case they are on. Are you?

We know Bruce Fischer has the autopsy photos. Your friend admits it (see attached).

He also admits it here: http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?p=129219#p129219

and here.

It's disingenuous to say prove the ones posted earlier when you know there was a picture of Meredith with a gaping knife wound on Twitter with one of the PIP fake accounts. That account suspended. No, the picture was not saved. It was awful. But we can imagine who would do something like that. The one urging Bruce to release the photos. Clearly, she had access.

I do not approve of Graham Rhodes' comments. However, I am not sure why you have brought out something dated 2015. Did you not complain to the right people at the time? You think a rant by a random person is mitigation for unacceptable conduct by a whole group of you? Clearly you do, as argued, above.

Two wrongs do not make a right, so why would you think this cancels out the outrageous behaviour, as outlined, above, by people claiming to be the official campaigning group for Amanda?

You think it OK to circulate private autopsy pictures?

 

[Vixen]

I believe RS is appealing. We have all seen the twists and turns of the whole saga.

There are no legal points on which to appeal.

 

[Vixen]

She was found not guilty like nearly everyone else I am prepared to bet, in the democratic world who is not found not guilty in their respective courts of law, and certainly not dissimilar to those found not guilty in England and Wales. This is why literally only about seven people on the internet still dispute the truth of this and why no (repeat: no) mainstream journalistic publication in Italy or elsewhere hints at the possibility that AK and RS are guilty of the crimes for which they have been conclusively found not guilty. They have been acquitted. They are not guilty. They did not commit the act. Also Amanda has a pending case with the ECHR. Also AK did not slander the police when she accused them of bad treatment.

'Not guilty' due to insufficent evidence, does not mean exonerated. As Numbers definition points out, it has to involve an element of being found factually innocent.

Marasca has made it clear the kids remain 'highly suspicious' and that Amanda was at the scene of the crime, did cover up for Rudy and did wash off the blood of the victim (bearing in mind blood dries within half an hour). Think hard, Toto, it does not point to 'exoneration'.

Anyway I have tow on my distaff.

 

[toto]

Reliability of AK Calunnia and RS compensation judgements

I think there is a tendency for courts not to want upset previous rulings or judgements or to call into question possible bad or incompetent behaviour of the authorities. I am thus less than convinced by some arguments that AK's Calunnia verdict has been fairly resolved, or RS's compensation case is wholly unrelated to the courts not wanting to give an inch, if possible, for the precedents that might be set.

I was reading an obituary of Lord denning just now in which the Guardian reported (in an obituary) that

In 1980 he upheld an appeal by West Midlands police against a civil action by the Birmingham Six over injuries they received in police custody. To accept that the police were lying would open an "appalling vista," he said. But 11 years later he admitted he was wrong, saying the West Midland detectives had "let us all down".​

 

[toto]

'Not guilty' due to insufficent evidence, does not mean exonerated. As Numbers definition points out, it has to involve an element of being found factually innocent.

Marasca has made it clear the kids remain 'highly suspicious' and that Amanda was at the scene of the crime, did cover up for Rudy and did wash off the blood of the victim (bearing in mind blood dries within half an hour). Think hard, Toto, it does not point to 'exoneration'.

Anyway I have tow on my distaff.

All as part of the contradictory evidence that was discussed. Anyway I have addressed the tendency of the courts to not upset the status quo in my post above. If you were to think hard you may recognise that you have read the judgement rather selectively, and failed to see how the wider world have unanimously accepted the verdict and moved on (except part time obsessives like me.)

You can literally say about nearly every single person in the world who has been formally exonerated, acquitted, found not guilty etc etc, that technically a mistake may have been made. That argument does not take us very far I do not think.

 

[toto]

There are no legal points on which to appeal.

Whatever your characterisation of the facts (and you may be right for all I know)nevertheless I believe he is appealing. I might be corrected on that, I accept. From my following of the case surprising things do happen.

 

[Methos]

I've started a little research project on "innocence fraud" as a term used in the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case and I'm seeking any generally-accepted legal or other definition of the term.

My preliminary search using Google did not find a legal definition for "innocence fraud". There do seem to be some groups in favor of the death penalty in the US, or perhaps more accurately who are opposed to those seeking to abolish the death penalty in the US, who use the term. Is there any other general use? Is the term a meme of the guilters, used on the sites that wrongfully maintain that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, even after their definitive acquittal by Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation?

[...]

I think the affection of the PGP with the term "innocence fraud" originated with this article:
'Innocence Fraud is Real' Warns Crime Lab Report's Chief Managing Editor

 

[Agatha]

Do not reproduce threats of imminent harm, no matter at whom they are aimed. Such things breach rule 1. You may link to posts from other boards or comment sections etc. that contain them, with appropriate NSFW tags if needed, and discuss them without repeating the threats themselves.

As always, please do try harder to debate without making it personal or uncivil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha