|
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 June 2019, 03:12 AM | #3801 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Rubbish. A motive is only required if you are trying to establish premeditated murder. In Italy, as murder and sexual assault is automatically 'aggravated murder' (the most serious crime of all) there is no onus on the prosecutor to establish motive.
Who knows how a murderer's mind works. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th June 2019, 03:21 AM | #3802 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
From M/B. "From the trial documents no motive had come out that could have induced Knox to a wilful participation to a murder and, contrary to the assertion of the fact finding judge, the motive is absolutely necessary in a trial based on circumstantial evidence."
Hoots |
8th June 2019, 03:51 AM | #3803 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th June 2019, 05:13 AM | #3804 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
I'd describe any judgement against me as defective if it was based on the same paucity of evidence as in the case against K&S, and further compounded with a law of no motive required.
Hoots |
8th June 2019, 05:55 AM | #3805 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
In the merits trial where the evidence is assessed and the facts are found the pair were found guilty as charged by a whole panel of judges and appeal court judges.
The annulment was purely political. Not even Marasca and Bruno could make it a clear not guilty but had to qualify it with a rarely used 'insufficient evidence' instrument which has always been the loophole for corrupt politicians. In reality, it had no legal remit to retry the facts but should have sent it back to trial if it found legal flaws. Truth is, it couldn't turn it around except by mealy mouthed references to the press, in which it errs as Italy doesn't have subjudice laws ('contempt of court' wherein the press are prohibited from speculating about a case whilst it is live). Clearly it was sleight of hand and back channeling by the misguided Department of State who have some sentimental ideas about the sovereignty of it citizens, together with Raff's father's powerful influences and barrister Bongiorno's political links. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th June 2019, 07:31 AM | #3806 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
You are suggesting that "insufficient evidence" isn't a legitimate legal consideration, which just takes me back to the point I made. What you are arguing for seems to be the endorsement of apparatus to bang-up innocent people for reasons other than justice. I wouldn't like it if it happened to me, but if it happened to you, you'd call it justice? It doesn't matter how far up the garden path you take it, the lack of evidence against K&S is factual and profound, regardless of legal considerations however they are interpreted. It's the facts at the epicentre of the case that will always win the argument and that is there is no factual evidence that K&S were involved in the death of Meredith regardless of M/B. Taking me on a meander up the garden path, while trying to tell me that a patch of impenetrable weeds are actually roses isn't going to help you.
Hoots |
8th June 2019, 09:04 AM | #3807 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
|
8th June 2019, 10:01 AM | #3808 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
8th June 2019, 10:07 AM | #3809 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
In other words, what is copied and pasted below is how the exonerating court put it in 2015:
In other words, even giving the benefit of the doubt those who believe attribution is certain, it still does not satisfy the "trial element". When one considers that attribution is (in reality) uncertain or totally missing, it still means that the "decisive" fact mentioned acquits the pair. Vixen is the only person left who seems not to get this. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
8th June 2019, 10:11 AM | #3810 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
8th June 2019, 10:59 AM | #3811 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
|
Vixen has been consistent in her hypocrisy by taking the view if something works against Amanda and Raffaele it is fine but if the same thing works in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour it is wrong but is too dishonest to admit this. Complaining that the supreme court acted illegally is an example of this. As can be seen from the link below numerous Italian laws were broken in the interrogations. Vixen s has no objection to this because it worked against Amanda and Raffaele and defends corrupt/police prosecutors. If the supreme court acted illegally it is not the breaking of Italian law that Vixen has an issue with but the fact it worked in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour by annulling the acquittal. The next time Vixen complains the supreme court acted illegally Vixen should be honest and say she only objects to the supreme court acting illegally because it worked in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour. If the supreme court acted illegally and confirmed the Nencini conviction or sent the case back to trial, there would be a deafening silence from Vixen.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/echr-case-law/ If as Vixen claims the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid and there was no justification for the supreme court to overturn the Nencinini verdict, why there are massive problems with the prosecution’s case :- • The evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is missing. Besides the dubious bra clasp, there was no forensic traces of Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith’s room. No reliable witnesses saw Amanda and Raffaele near the cottage on the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele were not caught on CCTV coming to and from the cottage. Meredith lost vast amounts of blood but despite this Amanda and Raffaele left no blood traces in the Meredith’s room such as bloody footprints and palm prints. There was no blood transfer in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s flat. There was no blood on Amanda and Raffaele’s clothing. There were no cuts on Amanda or Raffaele’s hands which should have occurred when trying to stab someone. The prosecution couldn’t find a motive which is proved by the fact the prosecution had to constantly change motives which indicated that each motive suggested was not credible and the prosecution had to find something else. As the link below shows the evidence suggests Meredith and Amanda had a good relationship and Amanda had no hatred towards Meredith. The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped for three days and nothing incriminating was said in their phone calls. Amanda had no history of psychiatric disorders or violence. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/ • The forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony provided by the prosecution lacked credibility and were full of holes :- http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/luminol/ http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...her-bra-clasp/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...mised-witness/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/antonio-curatolo/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/marco-quintavalle/ • The prosecution had to resort to these tactics detailed in the links below http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/ https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/ http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314 • PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. Below are some of the numerous lies Vixen has told in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is that in all the time Vixen has been a member of this forum Vixen has consistently been unable to argue the case for guilt on the basis of facts and Vixen can only argue the case for guilty by making things up or resorting to falsehoods which directly contradict the facts of the case eg saying Stefanoni found tissue on the knife when in reality there was no biological material on the knife. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575 The PGP have set up a fake wiki detailed in the link below http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anti-a...eceptive-wiki/ • Below are the appeal documents prepared by the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele before the Hellman trial. As you can see the defence were able to make highly effective arguments which punched major holes in the prosecution’s case. How do you explain this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk? http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html In view of the above the idea there was a mountain of damming evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele and the only possible explanation for the supreme court annulling the conviction is political pressure and the court couldn’t give a proper not guilty verdict is utterly ludicrous and it is typical of the gross stupidity of PGP posters to come up with such ridiculous ideas. This is only to be expected from people who are so stupid they think Amanda and Raffaele had to go back to the cottage to stage a rape when Rudy had already raped Meredith. Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. Lying is something you resort to when the facts are against you. The above facts overwhelmingly support the case for innocence and go against the case for guilt. In view of this why would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to the type of industrial scale lying we see from Vixen in her posts. |
8th June 2019, 11:00 AM | #3812 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
The point I was really trying to make is that if all the legal spin is taken out of the equation the fact still remains that there is no factual evidence that K&S were involved in the death of Meredith. This is the stand-alone main feature of the acquittal that M/B couldn't ignore, but even if K&S had been found guilty again, in denial of logic, it would still remain true. I think that I can say that with Chianti-quaffing eloquence and lashings of tranquillity.
Hoots |
8th June 2019, 11:43 AM | #3813 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Please show me where I said the prosecution MUST present a motive. I clearly said establishing a motive is not legally required but that a motive is important to a jury. The prosecution in the Kercher case proposed a (different) motive in all three trials and each judge also cited a motive (or lack of) which demonstrates motives are important to the jury which, in Italy, includes the judges.
Understanding how the "murderer's mind works" is the very reason why the prosecution presents a motive. Why did he kill his wife? For the insurance money. Why did she kill her boyfriend? Because he left her. Like I said, people don't do things for no reason unless they literally don't know what they are doing. |
8th June 2019, 12:29 PM | #3814 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
And a whole panel of appeal judges and Supreme Court judges overturned those convictions. You ignore that time and time again.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
8th June 2019, 12:36 PM | #3815 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
I've just been reading about criminal motive. The first thing is to distinguish it from "Mens rea".
But more specifically is pertinence of motive, as a way of measuring criminal liability. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
At the end of the day, the prosecution's failed to show any actions on the part of K or S that were elements of a guilty mind that those actions could have resulted in murder. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
8th June 2019, 12:36 PM | #3816 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
'Insufficient evidence' is fine for the preliminary courts but for the Supreme Court to use it after a long fair trial found they were guilty as chargd is just a case of having found a loophole, as suggested by Bongiorno who used the same get-out clause for her political client Andreotti. Berlusconi also used it. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th June 2019, 12:37 PM | #3817 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
Chianti
I have to admit solemnly, that I have seriously misled everyone with the content of my last post. I'd now like to qualify the above post to indicate that I would in no way quaff a Chianti since it stinks like furniture polish. I would instead thoroughly recommend an Australian Merlot, possibly the robust "Hardy's Stamp" if anyone is to partake of tranquil eloquence in the foreseeable future. Sincerest apologies to all concerned.
Hoots |
8th June 2019, 12:38 PM | #3818 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th June 2019, 12:43 PM | #3819 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
There is no requirement in criminal law - contrary to M-B claims and yours - for there to be 100% proof. That is a deliberate misconception. All that is needed is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In a murder trial that bar is very high. The pair were convicted after a conventionally fair trial, after the courts heard all of the evidence before it. It was beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.
M-B had to resort to nitpicking about the press as their reason for annulment which is not a legal reason as there is no law in Italy against the press following a court case. Let's face it, the annulment was pure political. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th June 2019, 01:04 PM | #3820 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Neither the SC nor anyone else has EVER claimed that there must be "100% proof". That is a blatantly false claim, even for you.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
8th June 2019, 01:10 PM | #3821 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
No, no, no. Nice try but no cigar. The two were concerned with totally different things. One was a murder trial and the other a lawsuit for compensation for wrongful arrest and imprisonment.
Quote:
|
8th June 2019, 01:19 PM | #3822 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
|
8th June 2019, 01:24 PM | #3823 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
I must say, it's a genuine delight to see people being schooled in the law by a person whose arguments vividly demonstrate little or no understanding of the law.
Strange times, indeed! |
8th June 2019, 01:34 PM | #3824 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
|
8th June 2019, 01:46 PM | #3825 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
The pair lied and lied and lied. Raff deliberately and knowingly mislead the police as did Knox. Knox WAS present during the murder of Meredith Kercher, did wash of Mez' blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.
This is spelt out large. The Supreme Court signed off on this judgment. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
8th June 2019, 02:29 PM | #3826 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
I'll repeat this since you seem to have missed it:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Knox pointed out Guede's feces in the toilet, left Guede's visible bloody shoe prints in the hallway, left the pillowcase with Guede's palm print on it, and pointed out the bloody footprint on the bathmat (or do you want to claim that it was Sollecito's and she was really trying to pin it on her alibi?). Use some common sense here and stop being intellectually dishonest. |
8th June 2019, 03:00 PM | #3827 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
For any of this to have any credibility these points would have to be contained in a sustainable narrative of the crime; however, no such pro-guilt narrative exists. If you'd like to offer a sustainable theory of the crime to accommodate these points, fire away, I'd love to hear it!
Hoots |
8th June 2019, 03:20 PM | #3828 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
|
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
8th June 2019, 03:43 PM | #3829 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 298
|
|
8th June 2019, 03:52 PM | #3830 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
|
*in Stat Department meeting*
Exhibit A: Amanda Knox. This is our subject, she's a killer and rapist. *slide change* Exhibit B: Meredith Kercher. Here's the victim, a nice young student from Britain studying abroad in Italy. She had her throat sliced open by Amanda and died slowly, choking up her own blood. Amanda celebrated this act by kissing her boyfriend on TV. Now your task will be to free poor Amanda from the grips of Italian justice. Let's remember who we're fighting for people! |
8th June 2019, 03:56 PM | #3831 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Remember the 'judicial fact' that a woman wearing tight jeans could not be raped? She had to have cooperated because it would be too difficult for the rapist to remove her tight jeans against her will.
Although a later SC ruled that this could happen in an unrelated case, the previous ruling stood and that defendant remained acquitted. The later SC's ruling could not change that previous judgment just as Marasca had to deal with the previous SC definitive ruling that Knox had been in the apartment when Kercher was killed on Knox's calunnia conviction. |
8th June 2019, 04:03 PM | #3832 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
And just look at all those other murderers and rapists our State Dept. has forced foreign governments to release just because they're American! That's why there are no Americans in foreign jails. Americans can rape and murder on foreign soil with no fear. The State Dept. has their backs.
|
8th June 2019, 04:22 PM | #3833 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
|
8th June 2019, 04:25 PM | #3834 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
StacyHS, I was going to point out the exact points you pointed out. Vixen keeps on and on and on and on repeating falsehoods, as if mere repetition proves something.
The 2015 Supreme Court DID NOT RETRY FACTS. How many times does that need to be repeated to counter Vixen's falsehoods. As posted here, ad nauseam, the 2015 Supreme Court exonerated based on saying that even if the body of facts that the Nencini found as factual were, indeed, factual, they still did not justify, in law, a conviction. I have copy and pasted the relevant section of the 2015 Motivations Report dozens of times. So I repost your back and forth with Vixen just so that it gets bumped to the top. Not even Stefano Maffei, a bona fide Italian lawyer who believes the pair were guilty argues this way. (And Maffei is the only lawyer in Italy of repute I can find that argues against K and S.) |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|