IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


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.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 8th January 2016, 04:30 PM   #3281
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Erratum: that should read 2014, not 2015.
Soz, it was 2015.

(It was the American date style of 7/1/2015 that threw me and made me think it was pre-Bruno-Marasca.)
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 8th January 2016 at 04:34 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:33 PM   #3282
Wattson
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Yes I've been to Italy numerous times. Can you tell us the word for bar in Italian that describes what we call a bar? Do you know what the original said?

It is also possible they met at lunch sat in a cafe/bar ate a bite and discussed the case.

Somehow we found plenty of places to sit and have coffee as well as small bites.

Perhaps you should use Google images and see bars in Perugia. Maybe things have changed since you and your partner Mr. Holmes solved crimes there.
Typically, Italians don't sit down for their coffee... but many tourists do. Taverna would be the term I would use. The simple point is, the term bar in Italy would be considered different than what North Americans consider a bar.
Wattson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:33 PM   #3283
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'll supply them when you do.


Many people are morons. Ever see what happens to any concrete block when the compression capacity is exceeded? Apparently not.
This was steel and glass and there was a two-hour Panorama BBC tv programme about it.

I take it Chieffi made no such "nutjob" 911 claims, as you you refuse to back up your slur designed to diminish Chieffi's reputation in the eyes of the forum readers.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:39 PM   #3284
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This was steel and glass and there was a two-hour Panorama BBC tv programme about it.

I take it Chieffi made no such "nutjob" 911 claims, as you you refuse to back up your slur designed to diminish Chieffi's reputation in the eyes of the forum readers.
Ok, it wasn't Chieffi, only a member of that CSC Chieffi panel Ferdinando Imposimato.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:50 PM   #3285
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
Originally Posted by Wattson View Post
Typically, Italians don't sit down for their coffee... but many tourists do. Taverna would be the term I would use. The simple point is, the term bar in Italy would be considered different than what North Americans consider a bar.
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.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:51 PM   #3286
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Ok, it wasn't Chieffi, only a member of that CSC Chieffi panel Ferdinando Imposimato.
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:
He graduated in law at the University of Naples in 1959. After becoming police vice-commissar, he worked in Brescia and then in Forlė. After one year in Rome as a functionary of the Ministry of Treasury, he become a magistrate in 1964.

During his career as prosecutor, Imposimato was in charge of investigation for the kidnapping of Aldo Moro, Mehmet Ali Ağca's attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, the assassination of banker Michele Sindona, and several Mafia trials. In 1981 he was in charge of the trial against the Banda della Magliana. Two years later, his brother Franco was killed in revenge and, after endless menaces against his family from organized crime, he left his work as judge in 1986, working as United Nations consultant against the drugs market. He also dealt with violations of human rights in South America.

In 1987 Imposimato was elected to the Italian Senate[verification needed]. In 1992 he was re-elected to the Chamber of Deputies. He was a member of the Parliamentary Anti-Mafia Commission in three consecutive legislatures.

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

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:53 PM   #3287
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This was steel and glass and there was a two-hour Panorama BBC tv programme about it.

I take it Chieffi made no such "nutjob" 911 claims, as you you refuse to back up your slur designed to diminish Chieffi's reputation in the eyes of the forum readers.
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.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 8th January 2016 at 05:53 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:57 PM   #3288
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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:


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.
He went much further than that suggesting that 911 was a false flag operation.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 04:58 PM   #3289
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
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.
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:
[6] In the course of the proceedings there had been two experts nominated [by the Court] who, amongst other things, had submitted their report ignoring the documents attesting to the negative result of controls on the presumed contamination of the knife and of the bra-clasp, documents adduced instead by the Public Prosecutor. This should have entailed the sweeping away of [=the complete rejection of] the same expert report but the Court, presided by Pratillo Hellmann, with Advisor-Recorder Dr Massimo Zanetti, had ignored the grave error committed by the experts, an error which had been severely censured by the [Chieffi] Court of Cassation, First Criminal Chamber, in the decision handed down on 26 March 2013…

Investigation of Conti and Vecchiotti is also proceeding. They seem to have been bent and to have lied to the court - either that or remarkably incompetent. There is another quote strongly suggesting they were bent below.

[7] [Judge Chieffi] accepted almost all the grounds of appeals put forward by the Prosecutor-General and had annulled completely and definitively the acquittal decision, with remission (evidently upholding the grounds of appeal) to the Court of Assizes Court of Appeal of Florence which, in its turn, had fully confirmed the convictions of the Court of Assizes of Perugia.
Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?...ould_be_cause/

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

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 05:01 PM   #3290
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
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.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 05:02 PM   #3291
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
He went much further than that suggesting that 911 was a false flag operation.
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

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 05:24 PM   #3292
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
No, he's a senile old nutjob who belongs in an institution and not on the bench.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 05:35 PM   #3293
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In any case, the claims Mignini makes about Vechhiotti and Conti are far more serious than the already serious issue of tampering with witnesses:



Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?...ould_be_cause/

You can say you reject the source, but the above is a summary of the direct quotes from Mignini's particulars against Maori.

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.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 05:38 PM   #3294
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
He went much further than that suggesting that 911 was a false flag operation.

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.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 05:47 PM   #3295
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.
Fair enough. But this justice is an example of the morons who said no to Hellman.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 11:55 PM   #3296
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
FYI: The engineering infrastructure was such that one of the towers collapsed in on itself, as though dynamite had been applied to it, but actually it was a design fault of the building.

Please show the citation that proves "Chieffi is a 911 nutjob".
Nonsense. The buildings were unclad structural steel structures which unlike reinforced concrete buildings are more vulnerable to fire.

There was no design fault.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 06:07 AM   #3297
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I cannot see any similarity between the negligent - at best - Sepp Blatter and the successful PM Mignini. You do know Maori is accused of improperly giving a press interview piling on libel upon libel on the investigators and lo and behold, this is the main header of Bruno-Marasca's reasons for acquittal, the other being press attention, which again Maori piled false allegation upon false allegation that the press helped "railroad Foxy Knoxy", one of the biggest hoaxes of the century.

The prosecution was refused a hearing by Bruno-Marasca, yet Avv Bongiorno and Velladova were allowed days of Maori-style calumnies.
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.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 06:51 AM   #3298
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
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.
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


Last edited by Vixen; 9th January 2016 at 07:24 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 07:13 AM   #3299
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Fair enough. But this justice is an example of the morons who said no to Hellman.
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


Last edited by Vixen; 9th January 2016 at 08:07 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 07:27 AM   #3300
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
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.
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

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 07:32 AM   #3301
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Deleted.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 9th January 2016 at 08:09 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 08:06 AM   #3302
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So structural engineers who opined the WTC in 911 appeared to be a demolition from within the basement and see here tv anchorman's first impressions http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/.../jennings.html 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".
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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 WE English have a term for Hellmann and no doubt the Italians, which is, we consider him a "*********** idiot".
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.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 09:09 AM   #3303
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by Mike1711; 9th January 2016 at 09:12 AM.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 09:34 AM   #3304
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
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.
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, Sollecito’s 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.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 09:35 AM   #3305
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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".
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 “ 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 “ No.
QUESTION Is it possible to check the extraction log.
• ANSWER  Yes, one can check.
QUESTION “ Is it a number that can be
acquired?
ANSWER Yes.
QUESTION “ One can obtain the extraction in the
extraction log as you say.
ANSWER Yes.
QUESTION “ 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 “ But you do not remember now?
ANSWER No, here, no..
• QUESTION “ 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 “ Attorney Ghirga “ 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?
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 09:48 AM   #3306
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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".
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.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 11:05 AM   #3307
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
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, Sollecito’s 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?
So you're quoting newspapers as well.

There is no way that in a case involving people's lives that any sane court would not allow the defence to complete arguments. If they did this would be a basic Italian Constitutional Law contravention.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 12:13 PM   #3308
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
So you're quoting newspapers as well.

There is no way that in a case involving people's lives that any sane court would not allow the defence to complete arguments. If they did this would be a basic Italian Constitutional Law contravention.
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.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:20 PM   #3309
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your arguments all seem to be based on knee-jerk irrational prejudice.
It's not irrational prejudice to say that someone who believes in ludicrous conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence to support them is a nut-job. Just common sense.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:23 PM   #3310
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am not aware "truther" is an English word.
Allow me to assist you then:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...nglish/truther

You're welcome.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:35 PM   #3311
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
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.
You'd be wrong, as anything that is signficantly over the time limit can be read by the judges in their chambers, which happens all the time.

Avv Bongiorno was monstrously over the time limit, causing prejudice to the other appellants.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:37 PM   #3312
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Allow me to assist you then:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...nglish/truther

You're welcome.
Sorry? Did you not see the bit that reads: [USUALLY WITH MODIFIER] US informal.

Pleasure.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:40 PM   #3313
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
It's not irrational prejudice to say that someone who believes in ludicrous conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence to support them is a nut-job. Just common sense.
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

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:44 PM   #3314
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
So you're quoting newspapers as well.

There is no way that in a case involving people's lives that any sane court would not allow the defence to complete arguments. If they did this would be a basic Italian Constitutional Law contravention.
You have evaded the point. I said all the other barristers were given twenty minutes and you leapt in and said this was false.

The GUARDIAN proves it is not.

Don't try to change the context.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:45 PM   #3315
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
So you're quoting newspapers as well.

There is no way that in a case involving people's lives that any sane court would not allow the defence to complete arguments. If they did this would be a basic Italian Constitutional Law contravention.
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.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 01:49 PM   #3316
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You have evaded the point. I said all the other barristers were given twenty minutes and you leapt in and said this was false.

The GUARDIAN proves it is not.

Don't try to change the context.
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.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 02:07 PM   #3317
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
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 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.

Last edited by Mike1711; 9th January 2016 at 02:10 PM.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 02:13 PM   #3318
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,033
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
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.
You know not of what you speak.

Here is a snip from Wiki on how the US Supreme Court operates:

Oral arguments[edit]
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.


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.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 02:20 PM   #3319
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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"?
If you can point to someone who believes that I'd be interested to see.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th January 2016, 02:21 PM   #3320
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sorry? Did you not see the bit that reads: [USUALLY WITH MODIFIER] US informal.

Pleasure.
It's in the Oxford English Dictionary. You can now use it with impunity.

You're welcome.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.