Stacyhs, thanks for posting this link. Her talk is excellent. She and her colleagues have done experiments that demonstrate how false memories can be generated by suggestion and stress.
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27
- Thread starter Stacyhs
- Start date
- Status
Stacyhs, thanks for posting this link. Her talk is excellent. She and her colleagues have done experiments that demonstrate how false memories can be generated by suggestion and stress.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
Even though she never mentioned AK or RS, I'm sure she's still just a shill for them.
Yes, but the case she speaks of involves a man from Seattle so of course she's a paid shill for Knox.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
You thought wrong. As usual there is no citation to support what you claim to believe about someone.
And around and around we go.....
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Stop making things up. I'd ask you for a quote from me supporting such a claim but I know it would be a waste of time.
This is what Psychology Today has to say about people who constantly make things up/ lie:
Speaking of just making things up, do you have any citations that the following claims of yours aren't just made up?
"Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse."
"Police, barristers and judges are trained to be alert to lying."
What? You don't? Shocking!
Some time ago on this forum some posters compared the charging and conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba with the US federal crime of a violation of 18 USC Section 1001 (Making false statements to US authorities).
It's interesting that a case has just come up today, 1 Dec. 2017, where an individual, a former high-ranking US general and government official, has pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 USC Section 1001.*
And one can readily observe that the circumstances of such a US charge are quite different than the circumstances surrounding the calunnia charge against and subsequent conviction of Amanda Knox.
The elements of the US charge requires that, for there to have been a crime, the individual must "willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations".* Thus, one could not be charged for making statements that were produced under any kind of coercion.
In the case of Italy, the calunnia law also requires that the statement falsely accusing someone be made knowing that it was false. But the Italian courts have not seriously investigated** whether or not the statement - written out in Italian by the police and signed by Knox - was made under coercion, despite Knox's claims that they were, and her two statements which she herself wrote out in English, after the coercive interrogation, denying the validity of her accusation. Thus, there is no practical equivalence of the calunnia law as interepted by the Italian courts in this case to the US federal false statements law, which only applies to false statements that have been made "willfully and knowingly".
* https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ackage-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Note that this document is labeled as an "Information" because the individual charged has pleaded guilty.
**The Gemelli CSC panel and the Boninsegna court have indicated that the interrogation was a violation of defense rights. However, the calunnia charge was allowed by the Gemelli CSC panel specifically because Knox wrote a defensive document soon after the interrogation, in which she claimed to have be coerced by the police.
It's interesting that a case has just come up today, 1 Dec. 2017, where an individual, a former high-ranking US general and government official, has pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 USC Section 1001.*
And one can readily observe that the circumstances of such a US charge are quite different than the circumstances surrounding the calunnia charge against and subsequent conviction of Amanda Knox.
The elements of the US charge requires that, for there to have been a crime, the individual must "willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations".* Thus, one could not be charged for making statements that were produced under any kind of coercion.
In the case of Italy, the calunnia law also requires that the statement falsely accusing someone be made knowing that it was false. But the Italian courts have not seriously investigated** whether or not the statement - written out in Italian by the police and signed by Knox - was made under coercion, despite Knox's claims that they were, and her two statements which she herself wrote out in English, after the coercive interrogation, denying the validity of her accusation. Thus, there is no practical equivalence of the calunnia law as interepted by the Italian courts in this case to the US federal false statements law, which only applies to false statements that have been made "willfully and knowingly".
* https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ackage-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Note that this document is labeled as an "Information" because the individual charged has pleaded guilty.
**The Gemelli CSC panel and the Boninsegna court have indicated that the interrogation was a violation of defense rights. However, the calunnia charge was allowed by the Gemelli CSC panel specifically because Knox wrote a defensive document soon after the interrogation, in which she claimed to have be coerced by the police.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You are very good at disninformation. However, it remains a definitive and solid fact in perpetuity that Amanda Knox did maliciously and knowingly falsely accuse an innocent man of rape and murder, for which she was CONVICTED and sentenced to three years imprisonment.
She is a hardened criminal.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
...... pending an ECHR ruling and any future internal Italian judicial "amendment".
But still,, it's good, though, that you concede that both she and Raffaele are definitively innocent of the murder charges. Thanks for that.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Don't lie. The Supreme Court ruled that Knox was present at the crime scene during the murder.
Both Raff and Knox are branded liars by the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.
Raff is such a liar, his defence team gagged him from testifying, he changed his story so many times.
His stonking great footprint in Mez' blood was on the bathmat.
Think, Bill. Think!
Don't lie. The Supreme Court ruled that Knox was present at the crime scene during the murder.
Both Raff and Knox are branded liars by the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.
Raff is such a liar, his defence team gagged him from testifying, he changed his story so many times.
His stonking great footprint in Mez' blood was on the bathmat.
Think, Bill. Think!
Please provide a reference for this.
As has previously been pointed out to you this is not true. That you repeat this falsehood just shows how committed you are to propagating lies; that you do so despite the error having been previously pointed out to you.
As the court says, "her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house."
Last edited:
Don't lie. The Supreme Court ruled that Knox was present at the crime scene during the murder.
Both Raff and Knox are branded liars by the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.
Raff is such a liar, his defence team gagged him from testifying, he changed his story so many times.
His stonking great footprint in Mez' blood was on the bathmat.
Think, Bill. Think!
We see here the blatant hypocrisy of the PGP when they attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying. Vixen yet again repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda and Raffaele lied numerous times and Amanda was present at the scene and then has the cheek to tell Bill Williams not to lie and calls Raffaele a liar.
Here's the relevant text (Italian text followed by English translation) of the Gemelli CSC panel motivation report.
"2. Con riferimento alla seconda censura difensiva la Corte osserva che le dichiarazioni indiziati sono caratterizzate da un differente regime di utilizzabilita sotto il profilo soggettivo. Nel caso in cui esse provengano da persona a carico della quale gia sussistevano indizi in ordine al medesimo reato ovvero a reato connesso o collegato con quello attribuito al terzo le stesse non possono essere utilizzate, oltre che contra se, neppure dei confronti dei coimputati dello stesso reato (o degli imputati di reati connessi o collegati).
Il regime di inutilizzabilita assoluta di cui all' art. 63, comma secondo, c.p.p. e, invece, da escludere nell' ipotesi in cui il dichiarante sia chiamato a rispondere, nello stesso o in altro processo, per un reato o per reati attribuiti a terzi, che non abbiano alcun legame processuale con quello per cui si procede, rispetto ai quali egli assume la qualifica di testimone.
2. With reference to the second defense complaint, the Court notes that the suspect's statements are characterized by a different regime of usability subjectively. In the event that they come from the person against whom there were already indications {clues or evidence} regarding the same offense or offenses linked to or connected with the one attributed to the third, the statements can not be used against himself, nor against the co-accused of the same crime (or one accused of related to or connected crimes).
The absolutely unusable regime referred to Art. 63, second paragraph, Code of Criminal Procedure, excludes cases where the declarant is called to respond in the same or in any proceedings {trial}, for a crime or crimes attributed to third parties, which have no connection with the trial for the case, for which he takes the status of witness.
Infatti, mentre nel primo caso, in forza dell' intima connessione e interdipendenza tra il fatto proprio e quello altrui sorge la necessita di tutelare anche il diritto al silenzio del dichiarante, nel secondo caso, invece, la posizione di estraneita e di indifferenza del dichiarante rispetto ai fatti causa lo rende immune da eventuali strumentalizzazioni operate da parte degli organi inquirenti (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpenelli).
Alla stregua di questi principi, le dichiarazioni rese da Amanda Marie Knox alle ore 1,45 del 6 novembre 2007, all' esito quali il verbale venne sospeso e la ragazza venne messa a disposizione dell' Autorita giudiziaria procedente, emergendo indizi a suo carico, sono utilizzabili solo contra alios, mentre le "dichiarazioni spontanee" delle ore 5,45 non sono utilizzabili ne a carico dell' indigata ne nei confronti degli altri soggetti accusati del concorso nel medisimo reato, in quanto rese senza le garanzie difensive da parte di una persona che aveva gia formalmente assunto la veste di indagata.
In fact, while in the first case, by virtue of the intimate connection and interdependence between the fact itself and that of others is the need to also protect the right to silence of the declarant, in the second case, however, the extraneousness {or strange} position and indifference {or apathy} of the declarant with respect to the facts in the declaration makes it immune from any possible exploitation by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sec. A. 13 February 1997, Carpenelli).
In the light of those precepts, the statements made by Amanda Marie Knox at 1.45 on 6 November 2007, resulted in the minutes being suspended, and she was placed at the disposal of' the judicial Authority {prosecutor} proceeding, since {the statements included} evidence that had emerged against her, and therefore are usable only contra alios {against others}, while the "spontaneous declarations" of 5.45 hours can not be used against the suspect nor against other people accused of complicity in the same crime, as {1.} there were no defensive guarantees given to the person who had already formally assumed the role of a suspect.
Al contrario, il memoriale in lingua inglese dalla Knox e tradotto in italiano e pienamente utilizzabile, ai sensi dell' art. 237 c.p.p., poiche si tratta di documento proveniente dall' indagata, che ne e stata spontanea autrice materiale a scopo difensivo. La disposizione in esame consented di attribuire rilevanza probatoria al documento non solo in quanto tale e per il suo contenuoto rappresentativo, ma anche in forza del particolare legame che lo lega all' indigato (o imputo), cosi lumeggiando il sindacato di ammissibilita che il giudice e tenuto a operare.
On the contrary, {2.} the memorial in English from Knox and translated into Italian is fully usable, according to Art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, since it is a document coming from the investigated (suspect), and it is spontaneously written defensive material. The provision in question allows the attribution of evidential significance to the document not only as such, and for its representative content, but also by virtue of the special bond that ties it to the suspect (or accused), so heightening the scrutiny of admissibility that the judge is required to perform. "
1. The Gemelli CSC panel admits that Knox's defense rights were violated during the interrogation. That is why her statements are inadmissible against her.
2. The Gemelli CSC panel uses Memoriale 1, being a defensive document, to introduce the interrogation statements, mentioned in the Memoriale, against Knox. Knox did not have the counsel of a lawyer in writing this, although according to Italian law and ECHR case law she very much should have been given one by the Italian authorities. Thus, the ECHR will take a very dim view of the Gemelli reasoning about the Memoriale.
"2. Con riferimento alla seconda censura difensiva la Corte osserva che le dichiarazioni indiziati sono caratterizzate da un differente regime di utilizzabilita sotto il profilo soggettivo. Nel caso in cui esse provengano da persona a carico della quale gia sussistevano indizi in ordine al medesimo reato ovvero a reato connesso o collegato con quello attribuito al terzo le stesse non possono essere utilizzate, oltre che contra se, neppure dei confronti dei coimputati dello stesso reato (o degli imputati di reati connessi o collegati).
Il regime di inutilizzabilita assoluta di cui all' art. 63, comma secondo, c.p.p. e, invece, da escludere nell' ipotesi in cui il dichiarante sia chiamato a rispondere, nello stesso o in altro processo, per un reato o per reati attribuiti a terzi, che non abbiano alcun legame processuale con quello per cui si procede, rispetto ai quali egli assume la qualifica di testimone.
2. With reference to the second defense complaint, the Court notes that the suspect's statements are characterized by a different regime of usability subjectively. In the event that they come from the person against whom there were already indications {clues or evidence} regarding the same offense or offenses linked to or connected with the one attributed to the third, the statements can not be used against himself, nor against the co-accused of the same crime (or one accused of related to or connected crimes).
The absolutely unusable regime referred to Art. 63, second paragraph, Code of Criminal Procedure, excludes cases where the declarant is called to respond in the same or in any proceedings {trial}, for a crime or crimes attributed to third parties, which have no connection with the trial for the case, for which he takes the status of witness.
Infatti, mentre nel primo caso, in forza dell' intima connessione e interdipendenza tra il fatto proprio e quello altrui sorge la necessita di tutelare anche il diritto al silenzio del dichiarante, nel secondo caso, invece, la posizione di estraneita e di indifferenza del dichiarante rispetto ai fatti causa lo rende immune da eventuali strumentalizzazioni operate da parte degli organi inquirenti (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpenelli).
Alla stregua di questi principi, le dichiarazioni rese da Amanda Marie Knox alle ore 1,45 del 6 novembre 2007, all' esito quali il verbale venne sospeso e la ragazza venne messa a disposizione dell' Autorita giudiziaria procedente, emergendo indizi a suo carico, sono utilizzabili solo contra alios, mentre le "dichiarazioni spontanee" delle ore 5,45 non sono utilizzabili ne a carico dell' indigata ne nei confronti degli altri soggetti accusati del concorso nel medisimo reato, in quanto rese senza le garanzie difensive da parte di una persona che aveva gia formalmente assunto la veste di indagata.
In fact, while in the first case, by virtue of the intimate connection and interdependence between the fact itself and that of others is the need to also protect the right to silence of the declarant, in the second case, however, the extraneousness {or strange} position and indifference {or apathy} of the declarant with respect to the facts in the declaration makes it immune from any possible exploitation by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sec. A. 13 February 1997, Carpenelli).
In the light of those precepts, the statements made by Amanda Marie Knox at 1.45 on 6 November 2007, resulted in the minutes being suspended, and she was placed at the disposal of' the judicial Authority {prosecutor} proceeding, since {the statements included} evidence that had emerged against her, and therefore are usable only contra alios {against others}, while the "spontaneous declarations" of 5.45 hours can not be used against the suspect nor against other people accused of complicity in the same crime, as {1.} there were no defensive guarantees given to the person who had already formally assumed the role of a suspect.
Al contrario, il memoriale in lingua inglese dalla Knox e tradotto in italiano e pienamente utilizzabile, ai sensi dell' art. 237 c.p.p., poiche si tratta di documento proveniente dall' indagata, che ne e stata spontanea autrice materiale a scopo difensivo. La disposizione in esame consented di attribuire rilevanza probatoria al documento non solo in quanto tale e per il suo contenuoto rappresentativo, ma anche in forza del particolare legame che lo lega all' indigato (o imputo), cosi lumeggiando il sindacato di ammissibilita che il giudice e tenuto a operare.
On the contrary, {2.} the memorial in English from Knox and translated into Italian is fully usable, according to Art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, since it is a document coming from the investigated (suspect), and it is spontaneously written defensive material. The provision in question allows the attribution of evidential significance to the document not only as such, and for its representative content, but also by virtue of the special bond that ties it to the suspect (or accused), so heightening the scrutiny of admissibility that the judge is required to perform. "
1. The Gemelli CSC panel admits that Knox's defense rights were violated during the interrogation. That is why her statements are inadmissible against her.
2. The Gemelli CSC panel uses Memoriale 1, being a defensive document, to introduce the interrogation statements, mentioned in the Memoriale, against Knox. Knox did not have the counsel of a lawyer in writing this, although according to Italian law and ECHR case law she very much should have been given one by the Italian authorities. Thus, the ECHR will take a very dim view of the Gemelli reasoning about the Memoriale.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
It said even if it was true they were present, the lack of any evidence of them in the murder room should have resulted in an acquittal.
Ah, er, no they weren't.
Citation, please. In law people are not compelled to testify, and by law no inference can be drawn by such action.
If that were true he'd have been convicted.His stonking great footprint in Mez' blood was on the bathmat.
Think, Bill. Think!
Let's agree that a sign of "thinking" is providing citations, so that we have something to think about other than endless assertions of factoids.
If Amanda and Raffaele were such prolific liars as Vixen constantly claims, why does Vixen have to resort to lying to sustain this claim? The constantly repeated falsehood the supreme court said Amanda and Raffaele told numerous lies is just one example.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Marasca Supreme unequivocally labelled Raffaele Sollecito and his casual sex partner Amanda Knox blatant liars.
From the Marasca Supreme Court Motivational Report, Sept 2015:
Sollecito in his police interview of the 5 Nov 2007, shortly after which he was arrested, withdrew his alibi from Amanda Knox. During the Nencini appeal phase, he and his advocate, Bongiorno, called a press conference to underline that Sollecito ‘could not vouch for Knox’ whereabouts between 8:45 pm and 1:00 am on the night of the murder. Sollecito has never once retracted this withdrawal of an alibi for Amanda.
Sollecito had claimed he was surfing the internet until 3:00 am in one statement and claimed to have watched Naruto cartoon until 9:45 pm on the murder night. It winds up:
What is it that is not sinking in?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Ut us actually good that you quote Maraseca's report - the report that explained why the Italian Supreme Court exonerated the pair, and reversed the convictions.
What is clear is that you don't read what you quote. Whereas you say that that report placed the pair at the scene at the time of the murder, the report itself says, "in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine.".
This is what happens when you do not read his book. In it you'll read why he is her alibi, a claim he had only once withdrawn and that had been at interrogation where he'd been threatened to be beaten.
Once out of interrogation he said she had been with him the night of the murder. It's the reason why the cops had had to return to the cottage 46 days later to get some evidence against him!
Sollecito has never once withdrawn his alibi for her. Please read his book!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Highlighted part: Ummm...no. Neither RS nor Bongiorno said he could not vouch for Knox between 8:45 and 1:00 AM What Bongioro said was:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...strategy-to-potentially-incriminate-Knox.html
(Psssst...and that's how you cite something.)
By the way, Vixen, if you're going to copy and paste an entire blog from the internet, please at least cite it. Here, I've done it for you:
https://krissyg1.com/2017/02/07/what-marasca-bruno-supreme-court-said-about-raffaele-sollecito/
Last edited:
- Status