|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
8th January 2016, 04:30 PM | #3281 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th January 2016, 04:33 PM | #3282 |
Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 137
|
|
8th January 2016, 04:33 PM | #3283 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th January 2016, 04:39 PM | #3284 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
8th January 2016, 04:50 PM | #3285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
|
And unless we know the original Italian we have no idea of whether bar was correct of if it should have been translated cafe or coffee bar.
If you wish to believe they were contending C&V were having a coffee after the hearing and Maori et al. were just having a coffee feel free. Are you Italian? Look at the images of bars in Perugia. |
__________________
No other murder knife tested negative for blood yet still had the victim's DNA. Only in Italy. |
|
8th January 2016, 04:51 PM | #3286 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
From wiki re Ferdinando Imposimato: He believes that the FBI was aware of the presence of the 9/11 terrorists in the United States but did not alert the CIA.
His resume reads:
Quote:
Given his wide ranging experience, his opinion might have more weight than yours? In any case, if the worst criticism you can make of Chieffi is that one of his panel of judges once said: He believes that the FBI was aware of the presence of the 9/11 terrorists in the United States but did not alert the CIA., shows it to be a compliment to Chieffi, that after trawling through every last detail of the First Chambers, the worst you could find was some mild opinion of the sort someone might voice down the pub. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th January 2016, 04:53 PM | #3287 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
Those concrete floors pancaking onto each other caused such compressive forces that I bet the air itself was more than enough force to cause those windows to violently explode outward. FYI, the glass on the outside of hi rise towers are designed to shatter into the tiniest pieces.
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
8th January 2016, 04:57 PM | #3288 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
8th January 2016, 04:58 PM | #3289 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
In any case, the claims Mignini makes about Vechhiotti and Conti are far more serious than the already serious issue of tampering with witnesses:
Quote:
You can say you reject the source, but the above is a summary of the direct quotes from Mignini's particulars against Maori. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th January 2016, 05:01 PM | #3290 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
Imposimato is a 9/11 truther and therefore an idiot. Anyone who thinks the towers "imploded" is also an idiot. The fact that such people also believe Knox & Sollecito are guilty is, I'm sure, a coincidence.
|
8th January 2016, 05:02 PM | #3291 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Having reservations about some of the events of 911 does not make someone a "nut job". Lots of ordinary people were asking questions. It was a need to understand.
Imposimato (_Sp?) having had years of aggro with the mafia, probably does have a good grasp of how intelligence works. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th January 2016, 05:24 PM | #3292 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
8th January 2016, 05:35 PM | #3293 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
1) I reject the source. Particularly the risible paragraph of "commentary" in the middle there 2) As you have been told, these are Mignini's allegations. Nothing more. Some of them are just plain nonsense (e.g. the stuff about negative controls, which, if you knew anything about that issue, you'd know are both a farce and a pack of lies from many, notably Comodi and Stefanoni), and the rest are trumped-up, anhydrous rubbish from a wounded and desperate-to-salvage-his-reputation maniac. |
8th January 2016, 05:38 PM | #3294 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Yes. But let's stick to a discussion of Italian SC justices (and how one might evaluate their intellect and suitability to pass judgement on serious criminal cases based on their crackpot opinions on 9/11) rather than getting into the nitty-gritty of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense itself. Because taking things in that direction will, without a shadow of a doubt, be deemed off-topic and removed. |
8th January 2016, 05:47 PM | #3295 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
8th January 2016, 11:55 PM | #3296 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
|
9th January 2016, 06:07 AM | #3297 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
Pretty normal appeal court procedure (your gross exaggerations aside). When the defence appeals a case, the appeal judges would like to hear the defences' arguments in detail. Unlike the Nencini circus, the B/M engaged, listened, and applied sound logi and gave a rational response.
Of course that the prosecution were denied an audience is pure fabrication, once more. It's not the time that wins an appeal. It's having the evidence on your side that does. |
9th January 2016, 06:51 AM | #3298 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
That's just sophistry. The parties were told at the start they would have an equal twenty minutes each to present their submissions. The hearing was listed for two days.
This was extended by two days, to give Avv Bongiorno a whole further two days, not advised in advance; they just allowed it. One would have hoped that an expert in Dutch and Roman Law in South Africa would be aware of the convention of giving all sides equal time allocation to put their submissions. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 07:13 AM | #3299 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
So structural engineers who opined on 911 are the same "morons" who said no to Hellman?
It shows a paucity of coherent logic to demand instant patriotism to the USA, when Imposimato is not even American, and is thus free of the charge of disloyalty and can voice his opinion about 911 freely, given he has a deep understanding of how serious organised crime and intelligence agencies work. In addition, the fact he was born 1939 IIRC, does not automatically render him a "senile old nutjob". Your arguments all seem to be based on knee-jerk irrational prejudice. I guess that enables you to ignore all the clear evidence of the kids' presence at the crime, by dismissing it as "planted by senile old nutjobs", fine. Hume did say reason should and ought to be driven by the emotions, but the more lucid among us expect something a bit more clear-headed than, "everyone was a moron except Hellmann, and Chieffi was a senile old nutjob". |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 07:27 AM | #3300 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
I am not aware "truther" is an English word. Is this another one of the PIP stock vocabulary-of-an-11-year-old, which includes "haters" and "guilters"?
Well, us English have a term for Hellmann and no doubt the Italians, which is, we consider him a "*********** idiot". |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 07:32 AM | #3301 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Deleted.
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 08:06 AM | #3302 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
|
Why again is the later an idiot but the former is an astute judge and former policeman?
The silliest thing is that PIP make fun of all the judges that convicted and PGP do the same for all judges that found them not guilty. I asked when I first joined here for the suspension of the use of guilters, groupies and haters as I thought and think it merely lowers the level of conversation. Not one of the MRs is clear and makes sense throughout. |
__________________
No other murder knife tested negative for blood yet still had the victim's DNA. Only in Italy. |
|
9th January 2016, 09:09 AM | #3303 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
So many inaccuracies....
A) twenty minutes each. Nonsense. Appeal Courts generally set down matters for a single day. Sometimes the hearing is adjourned to a future convenient time. There is no time allocation to the parties. B) The date was Wednesday 25th March 2015. Set down for one day. C) Court adjourned and hearing continued on Friday 27th March 2015 and the lower court guilt verdict was unceremoniously tossed out without referral. An emphatic verdict. Your time frame is nonsense. D) I have never claimed to be an expert in anything. E) it's not Roman and Dutch Law. It's Roman Dutch Law. F) You speak as though fairness is derived from equality of time rather than the comprehensive understanding by the appeal judges of the case. It's not a football game. |
9th January 2016, 09:34 AM | #3304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
|
Yes there was and there are time limits here as well in front of both Appeals and the Supreme Court.
From the Guardian: In a rousing closing argument that lasted nearly two hours they are supposed to be limited to 20 minutes in the court of cassation in Rome Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecitos lawyer, said her client had always tried to cooperate with investigators and had not been in the room where the crime was committed. I also remember that it was 20 minutes and Bongiorno was given extra time. Rather than posit about what you believe that appeals courts or supreme court do in general why not research the specific we are discussing? |
__________________
No other murder knife tested negative for blood yet still had the victim's DNA. Only in Italy. |
|
9th January 2016, 09:35 AM | #3305 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
|
Vixen constantly boasts how much evidence there was against Amanda and Raffaele. If there was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a slam dunk case, can Vixen explain the tactics the prosecution had to resort to :-
* If the laws of a country say suspects should be provided with lawyers, interrogations need to be taped and suspects told their rights, the police should have no problem doing these things if they have a strong case. If the police have built up evidence and a strong case, the police should present the suspect with this evidence and act the suspect to explain it. If the police have a weak case, they will violate the rights of suspects in interrogations. If the police have a weak case, they will have no evidence to present suspects during interrogations. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The rights of Amanda and Raffaele were violated. They were not officially told they were suspects, their interrogations were not taped and they were denied access to lawyers. Why did the police have to resort to underhand and illegal tactics if they had a strong case? The police wrote out statements for Amanda and Raffaele to sign. As the statements were prepared by the police, the statements are false evidence. Why did the police have to resort to using false evidence against Amanda and Raffaele if they had a mountain of solid evidence? If there was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were Amanda and Raffaele not presented with this evidence in the interrogations and asked to explain it? No questions were asked about their behaviour in the three day period prior to the interrogations and they were not presented with any forensic evidence. Why did the police who according to the haters had a mountain of evidence not use this evidence in the interrogations? When the police interrogated Raffaele, the evidence suggests Raffaele was not directly accused of killing Meredith but the police were simply trying to get him to drop Amanda's alibi. The statement prepared by the police made no mention of Raffaele directly taking part in Meredith's murder. The two statements the police prepared for Amanda were very short and made no mention of Amanda directly taking part in Meredith's killing simply she met Lumumba and he killed Meredith. How is this explained if there was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele? * If the prosecution have a strong case and solid evidence, they should never have to resort to lying about the evidence. If the prosecution have a weak case and a lack of evidence, they will resort to lying about non existent evidence or distorting the evidence. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The prosecution lied on numerous occasions. The details of the lies can be found by searching "Amanda Knox wordpress press prosecution lies" "Injustice in Perugia lies and misinformation" and the website Amandaknoxcase.com has details of the lies told by the prosecution. The prosecution lied about evidence which did not exist. The prosecution feed false stories to the media about the purchase of bleach receipts and the washing machine running. Mignini lied in court documents that attempts had been made in Raffaele's apartment to clean up incriminating blood evidence when no such evidence existed. Mignini also lied that the cottage had been cleaned with bleach. The prosecution claimed footprints in Meredith's room matched Raffaele's shoes when the number of rings in the footprints did not match Raffaele's shoes. It is hard to believe the police could make this mistake which indicates the police deliberately lied about the footprints. There were instances when the prosecution distorted the evidence. The prosecution argued Amanda showered in a bloody bathroom when she returned to the cottage. To support this argument the prosecution released a photograph of the bathroom being bloody but the bathroom only looked this way after being sprayed with a chemical and it was not how the bathroom looked to the naked eye. The prosecution did not say this when the photograph was released. Prosecutor Comodi accused Amanda of calling her mother before anything had happened. To support this argument Comodi lied about the time call saying Amanda phoned her mother at 12.00 pm when phone records showed Amanda called her mother at 12.47 pm. The prosecution claimed Raffaele called the postal police after they arrived. To support this idea the police lied about their time of arrival by 20 minutes which was proven on video. During the Nencini trial prosecutor Crini claimed the knife matched the imprint on the bed which was not true and the prosecution had not made this claim before. The prosecution also lied by omitting facts. Amanda said she read a German Harry Potter book at Raffaele's apartment. The police claimed there was only one copy at the cottage. Police video showed there was a German Harry Potter at Raffaele's apartment. The haters constantly boast about how much evidence there was against Amanda and Raffaele. If this was the case, why did the prosecution on numerous occasions have to resort to lying about non existent evidence, distorting facts and omitting facts. If the prosecution had such a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to making new lies up six years after Meredith's murder in the Nencini trial? * If the prosecution have a strong case, they should not have to resort to covering up things and are happy to have everything out in the open. If the prosecution have a weak case, they will lie to cover things up because the evidence does not support their case. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: Stefanoni said the footprints tested with luminol were not tested with TMB. The defense found Stefanoni had tested the footprints with TMB which turned out be negative and Stefanoni had lied. Stefanoni claimed contamination had not occurred in the lab when it was found contamination had occurred in the lab. Stefanoni claimed she had changed gloves when collecting evidence. It was shown on video Stefanoni did not change gloves. If the prosecution had a strong case why did the prosecution have to lie to cover things up? * If the prosecution have a strong case, the evidence should be solid, reliable and credible. The prosecution should not have to resort to using dubious evidence with no credibility if their case is a slam dunk and they have a mountain of solid evidence. If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of solid and credible evidence, they may resort to using dubious evidence with no credibility as they have nothing better they can use. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele was extremely dubious with no credibility. The knife illustrates this :- Not matching the wounds. The knife was too big to have caused the wounds It did not match a bloody outline on the bed It had no blood When C + V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which meant the knife did not contain Meredith's biological material. The circumstances surrounding the collection of the knife are highly suspect. The knife was picked at random from Raffaele's kitchen with no other knives taken from the kitchen or the cottage. How were the police were able to tell this knife was the murder weapon without collecting the other knives? When the knife was collected, the police officers who took the knife had no information on the size of the knife wounds and the knife was not measured prior to collection to compare the knife with wounds on Meredith. A justification used for taking this knife was that it was unusually clean. C + V found starch on the knife which demolished the argument the knife was unusually clean. A factor which is often overlooked is that the when Amanda was being interrogated, she was not accused of stabbing Meredith and in the statements the police prepared for Amanda, no mention was made of Amanda stabbing Meredith. Amanda never said she stabbed Meredith in the statement she made after the interrogation. How is this explained if Amanda was supposed to have stabbed Meredith? The prosecution claimed two knives were used. There were numerous problems with this claim. Why were the prosecution only claiming this when it was shown the knife did not match the wounds and not claiming this from the beginning? Why were the prosecution unable to show how Meredith's wounds were compatible with the use of two knives? How could Raffaele's knife be one of two knives when it was not compatible with any of the stab wounds? If the knife was used in Meredith's murder, why did the prosecution oppose opening the knife and the defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele had no objection to opening the knife? In an interview Mignini was asked how Amanda could have carried out the murder without leaving forensic traces. He said Amanda directed the murder from outside the room. How was Amanda was supposed to have stabbed Meredith if directing the murder from the corridor? How was a knife from Raffaele's apartment used in the murder if the crime was not pre-meditated. Massei argued that Meredith's murder was not pre-meditated. To explain how the knife was used, Massei argued the knife was carried out by Amanda in her handbag. There were no cuts in Amanda's handbag which carrying the knife would have caused. No one heard Amanda mention she was carrying a knife and no witnesses saw this knife. If the knife was used to stab Meredith, why did the defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele want to see Stefanoni's files and wanted independent experts to examine the knife? The alleged DNA on the knife was extremely dubious The length of the blade was 17cm and length of the fatal wound was 8cm. The defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele argued the knife was plunged several times to inflict the fatal wound and it is highly unlikely that in a frenzy a 17 cm knife would go exactly 8 cm several times. There were other instances where the prosecution used evidence with no credibility. For instance, at the time of the Nencini trial the prosecution released a CCTV of a woman who was not Amanda. If you search "Groundreport Amanda Knox the vendetta continues" this provides details. If the prosecution had a strong case and a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence totally lacking in credibility? The knife clearly could not have been used to kill Meredith. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence which could not have been used in Meredith's murder? If the prosecution had so much solid evidence, why did the prosecution feel it necessary to release a CCTV of someone who was not Amanda six years after Meredith's murder? * If the prosecution have a strong case and solid evidence, they should not have to resort to smear tactics If the prosecution have a lack of evidence, the prosecution may resort to smear tactics and character assassination to compensate for this. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The prosecution lied to Amanda by telling her she had HIV. wrote a list of sexual partners which the prosecution leaked to the media. Before anyone says the test was a false positive, no evidence has ever emerged an actual test was done. No details have been given of time, date and location for Amanda's blood being tested. No documents have emerged for blood tests on Amanda. Why would the the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had solid evidence? * If the prosecution have a strong case, they will want the evidence tested and investigated or have no objection if other parties want the evidence tested. A prosecution with a weak case will not want the tested because they know the results will not support their case. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: There were numerous occasions when the prosecution objected to the evidence being tested :- The prosecution opposed opening the knife Only 5 samples were taken from Filomena's room The area outside Filomena's room was not investigated The prosecution claimed the window in Filomena's room was broken from the inside. The prosecution did not carry out tests to support their theory The bra clasp was allowed to deteriorate making it useless for testing If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they not want the evidence tested or investigated? * If the prosecution have a strong case and solid evidence, they should not have to rely on using irrelevant things as evidence. If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of evidence, they will often resort to using irrelevant things as evidence. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: During the Hellman trial the prosecution showed a photo of Meredith's body. This photo did not provide any evidence and was utterly irrelevant in proving the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele. Why did the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had a strong case? * If the prosecution have a strong case, they should have no problems in answering questions and should be confident when testifying. If the prosecution have a weak case, they will often be evasive and unable to answer questions. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: This is Stefanoni's testimony where she says she can't remember how much DNA was on the knife :- DEFENSE Attorney Ghirga QUESTION Â One last question precisely in relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe, had said that you dont remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from the scratches. ANSWER Â No. QUESTION Is it possible to check the extraction log. ANSWER ÃÂ Yes, one can check. QUESTION Â Is it a number that can be acquired? ANSWER Yes. QUESTION Â One can obtain the extraction in the extraction log as you say. ANSWER Yes. QUESTION Â But you do not remember, correct, how much DNA you extracted ANSWER One can obtain the true extraction amount from that S.A.L., that one yes. QUESTION Â But you do not remember now? ANSWER No, here, no.. QUESTION Â Can one acquire this data? ANSWER Yes, the data of the extraction, yes. QUESTION While you confirm then how much was how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do ANSWER Yes, it was concentrated in the first sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10 microlitres. QUESTION Now, being interested in the exact quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, lets say in the court files, is that so? ANSWER Yes. DEFENSE ÃÂ Attorney Ghirga ÃÂ Thank you If the prosecution had a strong case, why were prosecution witnesses evasive in court and unable to answer questions? * If the prosecution have a strong case, they should not have to resort to using evidence which has been discredited as they should have plenty of other evidence to use. If the prosecution have a weak case, they may have to continue using discredited evidence as they have no other evidence they can use. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The prosecution claimed Raffaele called the postal police after they arrived. The defense conclusively demonstrated Raffaele called the postal police before their arrival. Despite this the prosecution were still claiming Raffaele called the postal police after they arrived at the Hellman trial. If the prosecution had so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why did they have to rely on discredited evidence? * If the prosecution have solid evidence, they should not have to resort to making claims with no evidence to back them. If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of evidence, they may have to resort to making unsupported claims. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: There were instances when the prosecution made claims for which there was no evidence. Massei made the claim Amanda carried Raffaele's knife in her handbag which explains how the knife was used in a murder that was not pre-meditated. No one saw Amanda with this knife. No heard Amanda mention this knife. Carrying a large knife would have caused cuts in her bag. There were no cuts in her bag. Mignini claimed Amanda had a hatred for Meredith. There was no evidence Amanda had a hatred of Meredith. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to making claims with no evidence to support them? * If the a country's legal system say judges should write motivation reports explaining their decisions, these reports should not have to resort to using falsehoods. If the prosecution have a weak case and a lack of evidence, motivation reports may have to report to using falsehoods. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The Chieffi report written to annull Hellman's aquittal and the Nencini report were riddled with falsehoods. These falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice Anywhere Chieffi report errors" and "Injustice anywhere Nencini stupid mistakes". If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did two motivation reports have to resort to using falsehoods? * If the prosecution have a strong case, their arguments should be solid and believable. The prosecution should not have to resort to using stupid arguments to argue their case. If the prosecution have a weak case and the evidence does not support their case, they may have to resort to ridiculous and nonsensical arguments. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The arguments used by the prosecution were ridiculous. To explain why Amanda and Raffaele left no forensic traces in Meredith's room, the prosecution argued Amanda and Raffaele carried out a selective clean up. Amanda and Raffaele were able to tell whose forensic traces belonged to who, cleaned up their own traces whilst leaving Guede's which is impossible. During the Nencini trial, prosecutor Crini argued Amanda killed Meredith because Guede did not flush the toilet. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using utterly ridiculous arguments if they had a strong case? * If the prosecution have a strong case, they should not have to resort to using evidence which undermines their case. If the prosecution have a lack of evidence, they may resort to using evidence which undermines their case. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The prosecution used the testimony of Curalto who said Amanda and Raffaele were in a square at the time of the murder which provides Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi. If the prosecution had so much solid evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the prosecution were so desperate they were prepared to use evidence which undermined their case? * A prosecution with a strong case, should never have to resort to using false documents. A prosecution with a weak may have to resort to using false evidence because there are problems with their case. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The defense team of Raffaele found Steffanoni tried to introduce documents from another case. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using false documents if they had a strong case? * A prosecution with a strong case and a mountain of hard evidence, they should not have to resort to manufacturing evidence. A prosecution with a weak case and a lack of evidence may resort to manufacturing evidence because they have no genuine evidence they can use. What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The prosecution alleged that Raffaele's DNA was on Meredith's bra clasp. The circumstances surrounding the collection of the bra clasp are highly suspect. The prosecution initially claimed footprints in Meredith's room matched Raffaele's shoes. Raffaele's family proved this was not the case. It is highly suspect the bra clasp conveniently turns up six weeks later when a piece of evidence collapses. The conduct of the prosecution is highly suspicious. Why did they only collect the clasp and no other items? Why did the prosecution make such a big drama of the clasp on video? This makes the claim the DNA on the bra clasp was planted credible. If the prosecution had a strong case and a mountain of evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to manufacturing evidence? * If the prosecution have a strong case, they should never have to suppress evidence and will have no problem handing evidence over. A prosecution with a weak case will withhold evidence because the evidence does not support their case. What happened with Amand and Raffaele: The prosecution suppressed on a massive scale. Below is just a small example of the evidence suppressed by the prosecution :- The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense; The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious do over tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were do overs The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide; The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs; The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred. The website Amandaknoxcase.com gives full details of the evidence suppressed by the prosecution. Why did the prosecution have to engage in the massive suppression of evidence if they had a strong case? |
9th January 2016, 09:48 AM | #3306 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
I'm not going to get into this in depth as it is off topic. But the Internet and the world is full of this nonense. People without a clue pontificating about subjects they know little about.How many people before 911 have seen a building demolished by 2 airliners being smashed into them? I hadn't. Yet I had seen many controlled demolitions. With no expertise a day only one type of frame of reference, morons who think their own hot air is valuable start running their mouths. A judge should no better,
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
9th January 2016, 11:05 AM | #3307 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
|
9th January 2016, 12:13 PM | #3308 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
We had a case here where the appeal court invited the defence to present their brief less briefly, and IIRC it went into a second day. Tragicly the appeal ended up being denied and both conviction and sentence were upheld.
Why would anyone want to handcuff an appeals court to a predetermined set-time? Oh yes, justixe never was high on some folks' list. |
9th January 2016, 01:20 PM | #3309 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
9th January 2016, 01:23 PM | #3310 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
9th January 2016, 01:35 PM | #3311 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 01:37 PM | #3312 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 01:40 PM | #3313 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Would that apply to people who believe in a mass conspiracy including cops, investigators, roommates, the British friends, the pathologist, the prosecutor, the forensic guys, the eye witnesses, the press, Matteini, Micheli, Massei, Nencini, Chieffi and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
Would such a person be defined as a "nut job"? |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 01:44 PM | #3314 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th January 2016, 01:45 PM | #3315 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
|
Mike you have acknowledged you aren't knowledgeable about Italian law. You make pronouncements based on nothing and when confronted with a report from a newspaper you demean it without providing anything but your own lack of knowledge to challenge.
It is customary here for the courts of appeal and the Supreme Courts to limit time. |
__________________
No other murder knife tested negative for blood yet still had the victim's DNA. Only in Italy. |
|
9th January 2016, 01:49 PM | #3316 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
The Guardian proves nothing. Twenty minutes of argument by each party is so absurdly incorrect that it begs belief that a newspaper would print such nonsense.
Do you know that every newspaper carries a column dedicated to apologising for erroneous reporting. It happens all the time. As they say. The proof of the..... ....took longer than twenty minutes. |
9th January 2016, 02:07 PM | #3317 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
No court should limit time to the detriment of justice (filibustering aside). It is customary for cases to exceed expected time frames which is why adjournments are common.
The AK/RS Appeal was set down for one day. There is a lot of twenty minutes in one day. Rebuttal? It went on for two days which suggests whatever time frames were targeted were not met. And that is common. You are correct that I am not an expert in Italian Law, however common sense tells me that if a time frame of 20 minutes was expected it was a inadequate and the fact that the limit was exceeded says a lot about how set in stone this limit was. It is common for judges to ask the attorneys how much time they require and it is common for that time to be exceeded. If you need a definitive answer perhaps someone with more time on their hands than I have (npi) can point to the relevant Italian Legal Code which allows courts of appeal to put stop watches on appellants. |
9th January 2016, 02:13 PM | #3318 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
|
You know not of what you speak.
Here is a snip from Wiki on how the US Supreme Court operates: Oral arguments[edit] Obviously they may extend the time but your contention of how it works is wrong. Time limits are also customary at the appellate level. |
__________________
No other murder knife tested negative for blood yet still had the victim's DNA. Only in Italy. |
|
9th January 2016, 02:20 PM | #3319 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
9th January 2016, 02:21 PM | #3320 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|