IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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

Reply
Old 8th November 2021, 04:05 AM   #1721
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Is it likely that a senior lecturer in Italian law is going to deliberately lie?

She may be mistaken in her belief that 'only an American' would think of faking a call to the police that closely resembles '911' when she is absolutely correct that a Brit or an Italian would not do that. Had Meredith been trying to contact police during the attack, she might have tried 999, although I feel sure that as a well-prepared type of person she possibly knew what the Italian emergency number was. The '901' is there. What it means is anyone's guess. And Sagnotti does say it is an opinion which nobody seems to have thought of.
She's either deliberately lying or too lazy or arrogant to factcheck. She doesn't say "closely resembles", she says Meredith's phone dialled 911 - and it didn't. And it's not "anyone's guess" what it means - someone called up Meredith's voicemail. No one but Sagnotti has thought of it because she's wrong on the facts.

And here's the thing: as you say, this is a professor of law. A professor of law who, in a public forum, accuses an acquitted woman of having committed a murder. The very least thing you can expect from anyone in that situation is that they have checked the facts that they use. Not only is the professor wrong about the 911 call, she's also wrong about Amanda only calling one of Meredith's phones. She called both, and you should know, since you just posted the log where both calls are marked with 'M'. Those are just the ones I caught too.

Do you think this sloppy, irresponsible behaviour speaks well of a professor of law?
FergusMcDuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:06 AM   #1722
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You still don't understand that phone evidence, do you?

The timings given are the timings after the call connected.

Example: I call my friend's mobile. My friend's mobile is set up to divert to voicemail if it's not answered within 8 rings (which take, say, 20 seconds).

So I call my friend. It rings and rings. For 20 seconds. It then diverts to voicemail: "Hey, you've reached Beelzebub! Sorry I can't get to the phone...."

At that point I disconnect the call, because I wanted to speak with my friend Beelzebub rather than leave him a voicemail message.

But here's the thing, Vixen: that call would appear on the call records as a 6-second call (the time taken for my friend's voicemail message from the start of the message until I terminated the call). It wouldn't appear as a 20s + 6s = 26 second call.


So I wait a few minutes, and I try my mate again, because I really do want to speak with him. Again, it rings and rings for those 20 seconds. And then I hear it cut in with his voicemail message again. As soon as I hear his voicemail message start, I terminate the call again.

Guess what, Vixen? That second call would appear in the call logs as a 1-second call.


You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to a proper analysis of the phone records, Vixen.

If you were so desperately worried about your mate you would surely leave a voice mail message. 'Hi, where are you? Can you give me a ring, we've had a break in at the cottage? Just wondering if you are all right.'
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:09 AM   #1723
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
She's either deliberately lying or too lazy or arrogant to factcheck. She doesn't say "closely resembles", she says Meredith's phone dialled 911 - and it didn't. And it's not "anyone's guess" what it means - someone called up Meredith's voicemail. No one but Sagnotti has thought of it because she's wrong on the facts.

And here's the thing: as you say, this is a professor of law. A professor of law who, in a public forum, accuses an acquitted woman of having committed a murder. The very least thing you can expect from anyone in that situation is that they have checked the facts that they use. Not only is the professor wrong about the 911 call, she's also wrong about Amanda only calling one of Meredith's phones. She called both, and you should know, since you just posted the log where both calls are marked with 'M'. Those are just the ones I caught too.

Do you think this sloppy, irresponsible behaviour speaks well of a professor of law?
Sagnotti says nothing of the kind. She is critiquing what she considers a lapse in Italian Criminal Law protocol using Knox/Sollecito Vs Italy as an example. She is using the case as an exercise for students of law.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:12 AM   #1724
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We use the Napoleonic Roman Law here (German version). It seems to be only the UK and former British colonies who use the adversarial system. I personally like the old Anglo-Saxon law on which the UK system is based but the Roman Law based 'gathering of information' and a panel of experts as the jurors seems to have worked all right throughout the centuries and even seems to be fairer, as the convicted have an automatic right to appeal, unlike in the UK, where of course you always have the right of appeal but it will almost certainly be 'sifted' out and denied 99% of the time. Juries by ones peers are a strong form of justice but also prone to man-in-the-street decision-making, which usually works out in favour of the defendant, so seems to work fine.

What on earth does the criminal justice system "there" (I presume you mean Finland?) have to do with the Knox/Sollecito trial process. And what on earth does your personal preference of criminal justice systems have to do with the Knox/Sollecito trial process?

By 2007, Italy's criminal justice system was - or should have been - adversarial in nature: where a defendant is presumed innocent until/unless a court deems that their guilt has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, there's ample evidence (across the whole of the Italian criminal justice system - not just in the Knox/Sollecito trial process) that some Italian courts and prosecutors were continuing to pay not much more than lip service to the adversarial model. Possibly on account of a) this model having been effectively imposed upon Italy from outside (here, the EU and Council of Europe), and b) a general reactionary attitude.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:18 AM   #1725
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If you were so desperately worried about your mate you would surely leave a voice mail message. 'Hi, where are you? Can you give me a ring, we've had a break in at the cottage? Just wondering if you are all right.'

Why? If the person either has their phone switched off (as Kercher's Italian mobile had been) or if the person is not answering their phone by the time it auto-diverts to voicemail (as was the case with Kercher's UK mobile), what utility would there be in leaving a voicemail message?

I'd argue that in fact, if one was growing worried about one's friend in such circumstances, the more natural reaction would be simply to keep trying both numbers. And terminating each time if you kept getting the start of the voicemail message.

But (as usual), you elect to place your own malevolent (mis)interpretation on things. What else is new....?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:19 AM   #1726
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sagnotti says nothing of the kind. She is critiquing what she considers a lapse in Italian Criminal Law protocol using Knox/Sollecito Vs Italy as an example. She is using the case as an exercise for students of law.

And as we've been saying: God help her students, in that case.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 04:32 AM   #1727
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sagnotti says nothing of the kind. She is critiquing what she considers a lapse in Italian Criminal Law protocol using Knox/Sollecito Vs Italy as an example. She is using the case as an exercise for students of law.

"Either she had clairvoyant abilities, or she was there, and she committed the crime." Shoddy logic aside, that is a clear accusation.

Last edited by FergusMcDuck; 8th November 2021 at 04:38 AM.
FergusMcDuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 08:16 AM   #1728
AnimalFriendly
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Guede did the crime and he did the time.
And isn't it just such a shame that Guede didn't do his part in making sure that Knox & Sollecito "did" as well?

I refer of course to his not having testified, during the Hellman appeal, about what took place in the cottage on the night of 11/1/07. He never testified about those events. He was never cross-examined by Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys about his version of those events. Despite the fact that his own trial was over & his sentence finalized.

I realize what a tough question this must be. Certainly not one for cowards. Which is why I'm asking you.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 09:45 AM   #1729
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
"Either she had clairvoyant abilities, or she was there, and she committed the crime." Shoddy logic aside, that is a clear accusation.
Any of Knox's descriptions of the crime which she made during her false confession, pointed to it being a classic false confession. As per what was written in the memoriale as a result of the overnight interrogation(s), none of what was written described the crime.

Not just that the confession was unaware of Guede claiming to have had a 'date' with the victim, but the confession was unaware of Patrick Lumumba having also had nothing to do with the crime. Despite, that is, Knox initially being called a liar by police when she said she had no idea who'd done the crime, because she'd been at Raffaele's.

Ok, sorry for going off topic. First Sagnotti says that the 911 emergency number appeared on Meredith's phone, meaning that only an American would have done that - then Vixen (no less) proves that '911' had NOT appeared on Meredith's phone......

...... but then even after proving that, Vixen still sticks with Sagnotti's conclusion, that Knox must have been there.

Can we just so for a moment and consider the bizarre logic Vixen operates from?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 10:32 AM   #1730
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,707
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We use the Napoleonic Roman Law here (German version). It seems to be only the UK and former British colonies who use the adversarial system. I personally like the old Anglo-Saxon law on which the UK system is based but the Roman Law based 'gathering of information' and a panel of experts as the jurors seems to have worked all right throughout the centuries and even seems to be fairer, as the convicted have an automatic right to appeal, unlike in the UK, where of course you always have the right of appeal but it will almost certainly be 'sifted' out and denied 99% of the time. Juries by ones peers are a strong form of justice but also prone to man-in-the-street decision-making, which usually works out in favour of the defendant, so seems to work fine.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
What on earth does the criminal justice system "there" (I presume you mean Finland?) have to do with the Knox/Sollecito trial process. And what on earth does your personal preference of criminal justice systems have to do with the Knox/Sollecito trial process?

By 2007, Italy's criminal justice system was - or should have been - adversarial in nature: where a defendant is presumed innocent until/unless a court deems that their guilt has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, there's ample evidence (across the whole of the Italian criminal justice system - not just in the Knox/Sollecito trial process) that some Italian courts and prosecutors were continuing to pay not much more than lip service to the adversarial model. Possibly on account of a) this model having been effectively imposed upon Italy from outside (here, the EU and Council of Europe), and b) a general reactionary attitude.
There appears to be continuing confusion about the current Italian legal system.

The Italian Constitution, Article 111, was changed by a Constitutional Law, enacted 23 November 1999, to mandate that all Italian legal proceedings were to be conducted according to adversarial principles*. This provision was enacted, after a long legal struggle, by the Italian Parliament and with the encouragement of the European Court of Human Rights and Council of Europe. Italy is a founding member of the CoE and ECHR.

The Constitution of the Italian Republic may be viewed at the Italian Constitutional Court's website:

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/d...a_italiana.pdf

An English translation of the Italian Constitution may be viewed at the Senate of the Italian Parliament's website:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...ne_inglese.pdf

Among the relevant provisions are the following articles:

Article 111 (regulating legal proceedings and defense rights, including the right of the defense to question witnesses making allegations; persons may not be convicted based on non-examined witness statements), Article 10 (providing that Italian law must conform to the generally recognized principles of international law), Article 13 (any physical or moral act against a detained person shall be punished), Article 24 (defense rights are inviolable - that is, never to be violated - at every stage of legal proceedings), Article 27 (an accused person shall be considered not guilty until finally convicted), and Article 112 (a prosecutor is obligated to initiate criminal proceedings when informed of allegations of a crime).

Note that Article 112 applies to Knox's allegations of her mistreatment and coercion by the police.

In the Knox - Sollecito case, each of the above-listed articles of the Italian Constitution was violated by Italian authorities at some point in the proceedings.

* Article 111 contains an exception for "fast-track" trials, when agreed to by the accused, if they are conducted in accordance with law. Such fast-track trials are not strictly adversarial and defense rights are limited.

Last edited by Numbers; 8th November 2021 at 10:46 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 11:40 AM   #1731
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,226
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
'901' is not the UK voicemail code.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/digital-services/voicemail

You were saying?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 11:59 AM   #1732
Mr Fied
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If you look at Knox' phone logs she rang MK's english and Itlaian phones for a total of one second and six seconds at circa 10:10. If she was so desperately concerned about her 'friend' then you'd think she'd give her a chance to at least answer.

It all points to her knowing exactly what lay behind the 'locked' door and who put MK in that position, that she had to ring her Mom at 4:00 in the morning US time, when up until then all contact had been via the internet café.
How many ******* times do you have to have this explained to you?
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 12:04 PM   #1733
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Oh no! Yet another misstatement of fact by Vixen.

But, but, but, but, but, but, but..... Vixen claims to be objective and only quotes from court documents!

Turns out that she is just at the end of a rather short human chain which begins with Mignini suffering from a humiliating loss. Mignini's story now is that he lost because "the other side" cheated. All he now has in his corner are people who think Meredith's phone had "911 calls" on it, therefore the American must have been the murderer.

Don't let it get in the way that they'd been 901-calls! The American still must have been the culprit, regardless of the collapse of factoids, the DNA and "all the other evidence."

Someone wake me when Dr. Stefano Maffei makes an appearance.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 12:49 PM   #1734
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,707
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Oh no! Yet another misstatement of fact by Vixen.

But, but, but, but, but, but, but..... Vixen claims to be objective and only quotes from court documents!

Turns out that she is just at the end of a rather short human chain which begins with Mignini suffering from a humiliating loss. Mignini's story now is that he lost because "the other side" cheated. All he now has in his corner are people who think Meredith's phone had "911 calls" on it, therefore the American must have been the murderer.

Don't let it get in the way that they'd been 901-calls! The American still must have been the culprit, regardless of the collapse of factoids, the DNA and "all the other evidence."

Someone wake me when Dr. Stefano Maffei makes an appearance.
Bill Williams, you simply don't understand the proper Italian legal system, according to Dr. Mignini and his friends, including the PGP, according to a published document*:

Quote:
It's a pun!' the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
Although apparently in the original draft**:

Quote:
“Now for the evidence,” said the King, “and then the sentence.”

“No!” said the Queen, “first the sentence, and then the evidence!

“Nonsense!” cried Alice, so loudly that everybody jumped, “the idea of having the sentence first!”

* http://www.online-literature.com/carroll/alice/12/

** https://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/435...-king-and-then

Last edited by Numbers; 8th November 2021 at 12:51 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 12:55 PM   #1735
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Looking through comments left on Youtube videos of A's interviews, what I notice is the amount of discredited 'facts' so many people still believe, especially Brits and Europeans. A's 'footprints in M's blood', mixed blood, A's DNA all over the house mixed with M's blood, a clean-up, A hated M, A and R were had mop and bucket when the police arrived, the 'A bought bleach' story, A and R were high on narcotics and likely alcohol, both had been 'wild', and ignorance of Guede's conviction. So many of their 'facts' are misinformation leaked by the police during the very early days of the investigation. It's as if their knowledge is cut off after the Massei trial and limited to tabloid stories. But, boy, are they 100% convinced they are guilty and Knox is a 'narcissistic psychopath'. That last is a favorite with them and their proof that she is a pathological liar and killer who wants attention because a 'normal' innocent person would just not want to talk about what happened. Of course all the 'lies' are everything she said that doesn't agree with the prosecution's version of the 'truth'.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 01:11 PM   #1736
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Looking through comments left on Youtube videos of A's interviews, what I notice is the amount of discredited 'facts' so many people still believe, especially Brits and Europeans.
My unscientific opinion is that most of those comments are from a smaller hard-core of people, meaning.....

..... estimate in your own head how many people you believe are out there with those views, then divide that number by 100.

In any event, it's a sign of the damage obsessive guilters like Harry Rag did, with his multiple cutting and postings in every comments section he could find.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 01:43 PM   #1737
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 844
Parla il pm che arrestò Sollecito e Knox

Just for the record:
«Non è un libro su Amanda. A lei dico: incontriamoci». Parla il pm che arrestò Sollecito e Knox (Google translation)
Looks like it's clear what dottore Mignini's book will be about... Certainly not "Non è un libro su Amanda."
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 02:51 PM   #1738
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,707
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Just for the record:
«Non è un libro su Amanda. A lei dico: incontriamoci». Parla il pm che arrestò Sollecito e Knox (Google translation)
Looks like it's clear what dottore Mignini's book will be about... Certainly not "Non è un libro su Amanda."
From the Google translation:

Quote:
Have you changed your mind about that crime after all these years?

No. The time that has elapsed hasn't made me change my mind. On the contrary, I am more and more surprised and critical of the Perugian Appeal sentence and the last one of the Supreme Court, among other things, in conflict with the previous one. ....
How shocking! Nothing at all new in Mignini's reported statements. Mignini doesn't seek to objectively examine his own role, as prosecutor in charge of the investigation and prosecutor in the trial process, in the "objectively wavering [trial] process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result of clamorous [glaring] failures, or investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity."*

* http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...ons-report.pdf

In the Italian original, the word "failures" is written in French and emphasized with italics: defaillances. The French word, according to Collins Reverso, can translate to the following relevant English terms: failures, deficiencies, shortcomings, malfunctions, weaknesses, defects, failings, flaws, lapses, breakdown, and gaps.

https://context.reverso.net/translat...3%A9faillances

Last edited by Numbers; 8th November 2021 at 04:12 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 03:46 PM   #1739
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
My unscientific opinion is that most of those comments are from a smaller hard-core of people, meaning.....

..... estimate in your own head how many people you believe are out there with those views, then divide that number by 100.

In any event, it's a sign of the damage obsessive guilters like Harry Rag did, with his multiple cutting and postings in every comments section he could find.
Not only Harry Rag, but there is one particular troll who does the same thing named Les Grossman. He also has many sock puppet accounts so he'll be in the same thread and post under those accounts, too.

Then there is another blog poster who repeats the same lies and misinformation we see on TJMK. She also is a frequent contributor to that website writing articles under her blog name or as part of the "TJMK Main Posters". In fact, the current article on the main page listing all the 'evidence' claims to be written by a trial lawyer but he fails to identify him/herself. From the amount of lies, assumptions and misrepresentations that follow, I suspect the writer in lying about being a lawyer. However, upon reading the article, the wording has a very familiar ring to it; that of the aforementioned blog poster who is most certainly not a lawyer. For example:

"the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world"

"the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito, and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university so far from the wholesome image portrayed"

"the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;"

In fact, almost every single point of "evidence" listed in that article has either been discredited and/or disputed by forensic experts, phrased in a way to falsely imply something sinister and misleading, is an assumption not based on fact, or are just blatant lies.

This so-called article was put up on Nov. 3. Five days later, there are only 4 comments on it: one from James Raper and three from Slick Pete. When are these sad sacks going to realize they are no longer relevant? And they call Amanda 'narcissistic' and 'attention seeking"!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 03:56 PM   #1740
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 23,371
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
From the Google translation:



How shocking! Nothing at all new in Mignini's reported statements. Mignini doesn't seek to objectively examine his own role, as prosecutor in charge of the investigation and prosecutor in the trial process, in the "objectively wavering [trial] process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result of clamorous [glaring] failures, or investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity."*

* http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...ons-report.pdf

In the Italian original, the word "failures" is written in French and emphasized with italics: defaillances. The French word, according to Collins Reverso, can translate to the following relevant English terms: failures, deficiencies, shortcomings, malfunction, weaknesses, defects, failings, malfunction, flaws, lapses, breakdown, and gaps.

https://context.reverso.net/translat...3%A9faillances
Like I said, he's just another person who refuses to, or cannot , admit to being wrong. We've all seen people like that; people so narcissistic that their fragile egos compel them to deny error even in the face of incontrovertible evidence like a court document, videos, recordings, and/or multiple reports from very credible sources.

The PGP constantly criticize A for not just 'moving on'. Yet here we have Mignini et al guilty of not 'moving on' without a peep of criticism from those very same PGP.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 10:08 PM   #1741
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Then there is another blog poster who repeats the same lies and misinformation we see on TJMK. She also is a frequent contributor to that website writing articles under her blog name or as part of the "TJMK Main Posters". In fact, the current article on the main page listing all the 'evidence' claims to be written by a trial lawyer but he fails to identify him/herself. From the amount of lies, assumptions and misrepresentations that follow, I suspect the writer in lying about being a lawyer. However, upon reading the article, the wording has a very familiar ring to it; that of the aforementioned blog poster who is most certainly not a lawyer. For example:
Oh. I think I've been going at it the last few months on reddit with this individual, who claims to have 20 years experience as a trial lawyer in California. They came out of the gate screaming that my posts were ********, I was a liar and had copy-and-pasted my writings from elsewhere. Genuinely unpleasant person. Still, there might be something to them being a lawyer, since their arguments always were rather legalistic. Basically, unless it was in one of the motivation reports, it didn't exist. I could write a whole bunch on the duodenum evidence and only get back "well, no verdict agreed with that, so it's irrelevant."

I have to say, if they are a lawyer, I don't think I'd want them representing me. Though the article appears to be 10 years old, and they still say "20 years experience", so I'm guessing they're retired by now.
FergusMcDuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2021, 11:35 PM   #1742
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,707
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
....

Then there is another blog poster who repeats the same lies and misinformation we see on TJMK. She also is a frequent contributor to that website writing articles under her blog name or as part of the "TJMK Main Posters". In fact, the current article on the main page listing all the 'evidence' claims to be written by a trial lawyer but he fails to identify him/herself. From the amount of lies, assumptions and misrepresentations that follow, I suspect the writer in lying about being a lawyer. However, upon reading the article, the wording has a very familiar ring to it; that of the aforementioned blog poster who is most certainly not a lawyer. For example:

....
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
Oh. I think I've been going at it the last few months on reddit with this individual, who claims to have 20 years experience as a trial lawyer in California. They came out of the gate screaming that my posts were ********, I was a liar and had copy-and-pasted my writings from elsewhere. Genuinely unpleasant person. Still, there might be something to them being a lawyer, since their arguments always were rather legalistic. Basically, unless it was in one of the motivation rep orts, it didn't exist. I could write a whole bunch on the duodenum evidence and only get back "well, no verdict agreed with that, so it's irrelevant."

I have to say, if they are a lawyer, I don't think I'd want them representing me. Though the article appears to be 10 years old, and they still say "20 years experience", so I'm guessing they're retired by now.
I suggest that no sensible working lawyer would bother to take the time to generate anonymous posts online on a settled case.

There were certainly some US lawyers or professors of law who publicly commented or published on the Knox - Sollecito case, or aspects thereof, back in the day. My recollection is that some had a good understanding of the differences between Italian and US law, while others made statements that suggested they did not understand the differences, or reflected misunderstandings of Italian law.

Last edited by Numbers; 9th November 2021 at 12:14 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 08:51 AM   #1743
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,179
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I suggest that no sensible working lawyer would bother to take the time to generate anonymous posts online on a settled case.

There were certainly some US lawyers or professors of law who publicly commented or published on the Knox - Sollecito case, or aspects thereof, back in the day. My recollection is that some had a good understanding of the differences between Italian and US law, while others made statements that suggested they did not understand the differences, or reflected misunderstandings of Italian law.
Two who come to mind are Paul Callan and Alan Dershowitz. Both gave long, detailed interviews on CNN on why the pair were guilty. In the week of the Jan 2014 Nencini reconviction, Paul Callan and Steve Moore argued on Erin Burnett's show. Burnett was useless, kept asked the two lawyers to comment on 'the cartwheels in the police station.'

Callan back then was defending the 2014 reconviction, calling it the result of slam dunk evidence. Moore countered with the fact that there had been no evidence. Indeed, the actual evidence was of police and prosecutor misconduct, to which (on air) Paul Callan rolled his eyes. Callan had said that he expected that the ISC would quickly confirm the conviction and that extradition was a certainty.

Then again, a few months later, Paul Callan began appearing in YouTube videos. His tune had changed 180 degrees. He talked about how Knox had been railroaded. I wish I knew what had caused this turn.

Also, I believe Dershowitz never gave up his guilter views. If so, he's probably the only remaining actual lawyer in the US who believes that the pair are guilty.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 08:55 AM   #1744
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Why? If the person either has their phone switched off (as Kercher's Italian mobile had been) or if the person is not answering their phone by the time it auto-diverts to voicemail (as was the case with Kercher's UK mobile), what utility would there be in leaving a voicemail message?

I'd argue that in fact, if one was growing worried about one's friend in such circumstances, the more natural reaction would be simply to keep trying both numbers. And terminating each time if you kept getting the start of the voicemail message.

But (as usual), you elect to place your own malevolent (mis)interpretation on things. What else is new....?
Er, I think the murderer is the malevolent one.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 08:56 AM   #1745
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
Oh. I think I've been going at it the last few months on reddit with this individual, who claims to have 20 years experience as a trial lawyer in California. They came out of the gate screaming that my posts were ********, I was a liar and had copy-and-pasted my writings from elsewhere. Genuinely unpleasant person. Still, there might be something to them being a lawyer, since their arguments always were rather legalistic. Basically, unless it was in one of the motivation reports, it didn't exist. I could write a whole bunch on the duodenum evidence and only get back "well, no verdict agreed with that, so it's irrelevant."

I have to say, if they are a lawyer, I don't think I'd want them representing me. Though the article appears to be 10 years old, and they still say "20 years experience", so I'm guessing they're retired by now.

Did this person deliberately - and unnecessarily - employ legalistic words such as "adduce" and "ratio"?

If so, I suspect the person in question is a tragicomic figure who lived a proper Walter Mitty lifestyle and was kicked out of ISF (JREFF) many years ago. He was in the habit of posting photos of what he said were his brother's supercars that he'd borrowed. And the consensus view was that he'd very probably been debarred or otherwise kicked out of the legal profession as well. Now what was his username on here......?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 08:57 AM   #1746
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, I think the murderer is the malevolent one.

Me too. In other words: Rudy Guede. And only Rudy Guede.

Your point is...?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 08:59 AM   #1747
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Two who come to mind are Paul Callan and Alan Dershowitz. Both gave long, detailed interviews on CNN on why the pair were guilty. In the week of the Jan 2014 Nencini reconviction, Paul Callan and Steve Moore argued on Erin Burnett's show. Burnett was useless, kept asked the two lawyers to comment on 'the cartwheels in the police station.'

Callan back then was defending the 2014 reconviction, calling it the result of slam dunk evidence. Moore countered with the fact that there had been no evidence. Indeed, the actual evidence was of police and prosecutor misconduct, to which (on air) Paul Callan rolled his eyes. Callan had said that he expected that the ISC would quickly confirm the conviction and that extradition was a certainty.

Then again, a few months later, Paul Callan began appearing in YouTube videos. His tune had changed 180 degrees. He talked about how Knox had been railroaded. I wish I knew what had caused this turn.

Also, I believe Dershowitz never gave up his guilter views. If so, he's probably the only remaining actual lawyer in the US who believes that the pair are guilty.

I think Dershowitz has got considerably more serious things weighing on his mind at the moment than commentating on this case on YouTube.......

In any case, the character who immediately came to mind for me here is the one I mentioned in my posts a few minutes ago.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:00 AM   #1748
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
"Either she had clairvoyant abilities, or she was there, and she committed the crime." Shoddy logic aside, that is a clear accusation.
No. Like most expert legal minds, she understands how to weigh up evidence.

It is a common error - and we have seen it here in this thread in buckets - for people to mistake argumentation as having any legal status. Sagnotti was spot on in pointing out that Hellman and Zanetti were civil law judges and had never judged Criminal Law, never mind the most serious crime on statute, murder (aggravated) and as she points out we see this in their amateurish approach of 'anything is possible' or 'the only certainty is the death of Meredith Kercher' as though they were at a Philosophy of Life convention.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:02 AM   #1749
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
And isn't it just such a shame that Guede didn't do his part in making sure that Knox & Sollecito "did" as well?

I refer of course to his not having testified, during the Hellman appeal, about what took place in the cottage on the night of 11/1/07. He never testified about those events. He was never cross-examined by Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys about his version of those events. Despite the fact that his own trial was over & his sentence finalized.

I realize what a tough question this must be. Certainly not one for cowards. Which is why I'm asking you.
Even in the USA it is an elementary legal principle of having the right not to incriminate oneself.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:06 AM   #1750
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Any of Knox's descriptions of the crime which she made during her false confession, pointed to it being a classic false confession. As per what was written in the memoriale as a result of the overnight interrogation(s), none of what was written described the crime.

Not just that the confession was unaware of Guede claiming to have had a 'date' with the victim, but the confession was unaware of Patrick Lumumba having also had nothing to do with the crime. Despite, that is, Knox initially being called a liar by police when she said she had no idea who'd done the crime, because she'd been at Raffaele's.

Ok, sorry for going off topic. First Sagnotti says that the 911 emergency number appeared on Meredith's phone, meaning that only an American would have done that - then Vixen (no less) proves that '911' had NOT appeared on Meredith's phone......

...... but then even after proving that, Vixen still sticks with Sagnotti's conclusion, that Knox must have been there.

Can we just so for a moment and consider the bizarre logic Vixen operates from?
All Sagnotti said was that she noticed nobody had looked at the events of 901 having been called on Mez' phone whilst she was being fatally assaulted. Would she really have been dialling 901 to pick up her voicemail, or was the person who stole her phones - originally considered to be Knox herself - trying to fake a call to the emergency services to subvert the timeline.

It seems a reasonable line of thought.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:09 AM   #1751
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Did this person deliberately - and unnecessarily - employ legalistic words such as "adduce" and "ratio"?

If so, I suspect the person in question is a tragicomic figure who lived a proper Walter Mitty lifestyle and was kicked out of ISF (JREFF) many years ago. He was in the habit of posting photos of what he said were his brother's supercars that he'd borrowed. And the consensus view was that he'd very probably been debarred or otherwise kicked out of the legal profession as well. Now what was his username on here......?

I don't recall any particular words, but they go by Oski96 on reddit.
FergusMcDuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:15 AM   #1752
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
In fact, the current article on the main page listing all the 'evidence' claims to be written by a trial lawyer but he fails to identify him/herself. From the amount of lies, assumptions and misrepresentations that follow, I suspect the writer in lying about being a lawyer.

I've just travelled over to the cesspit to have a look. Firstly, it appears to me that this is the case of an original post having been reproduced (because there's zero new anti-Knox-Sollecito content being generated there these days by anyone but Quennell), but having been appended - probably also by Quennell.

But the author of the original piece is unmistakable. It's SomeAlibi.

Amusingly, it again makes reference to him being a "trial lawyer" (including he himself making that claim within the article) - but even if he is/was who he represented himself to be, that's misleading at best and a flat-out untruth at worst. Because most people, when they read the term "trial lawyer", picture someone who speaks for the prosecution or the defence in a trial, examines and cross-examines witnesses, and makes arguments to the jury. However, SomeAlibi only ever claimed to be a solicitor. And in England&Wales, only barristers - not solicitors* - are permitted to perform the functions associated with the generally-understood term "trial lawyer". He might have sat in on criminal trials and provided his barrister with information, but he'd never once have uttered a single word in a court.


* Solicitors can represent defendants in misdemeanour-level offences (dealt with in E&W in Magistrates' Courts), and some relatively-minor offences in Crown Courts will allow for representation by solicitors with additional trial-related qualifications (Solicitor-Advocates). But for any felony-level trial of even moderate seriousness, let alone murder, no solicitor will ever be the one standing up and addressing the court.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:27 AM   #1753
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
All Sagnotti said was that she noticed nobody had looked at the events of 901 having been called on Mez' phone whilst she was being fatally assaulted. Would she really have been dialling 901 to pick up her voicemail, or was the person who stole her phones - originally considered to be Knox herself - trying to fake a call to the emergency services to subvert the timeline.

It seems a reasonable line of thought.

It was a crappy line of thought, born of an unchecked mistake.

And by the way, those short-code* buttons - including the short-code in Kercher's phone to access her voicemail messages - were pressed after Kercher had been killed by Guede. It was Guede himself who pressed those buttons, in a failed attempt to switch off Kercher's UK mobile phone (he'd already successfully switched off Kercher's Italian mobile phone).


* In case you're not aware (and it appears that you're not), it was common practice 15-20 years ago for cellphone users to assign phone numbers they called most frequently (eg partner, work, parents, voicemail, bank) to short codes on their handsets. Once the phone number had been assigned a digit (say, 7), the user would then just have to either press and hold the "7" button or press another button then the "7" (depending on the model of cellphone), and the handset would access and dial the full phone number. It's precisely the same concept as, for example, pushing preset buttons on a radio to tune straight to the radio station that you've previously stored as that preset number.

And that's precisely why Guede ended up dialling Kercher's bank and Kercher's voicemail access number. He didn't punch in those phone numbers in full. He was pressing random buttons in an attempt to switch the phone off, but instead ended up activating two of Kercher's stored short-code phone numbers.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:29 AM   #1754
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
I don't recall any particular words, but they go by Oski96 on reddit.

I might hold my nose and dip my toe into that Reddit thread later this evening, to check out this character.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:32 AM   #1755
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Even in the USA it is an elementary legal principle of having the right not to incriminate oneself.

More ignorance. The point here is that Guede had already been incriminated. He'd been convicted definitively of the crimes including sexually-aggravated murder. There's literally no way he could have further incriminated himself at that point.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:35 AM   #1756
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I've just travelled over to the cesspit to have a look. Firstly, it appears to me that this is the case of an original post having been reproduced (because there's zero new anti-Knox-Sollecito content being generated there these days by anyone but Quennell), but having been appended - probably also by Quennell.

But the author of the original piece is unmistakable. It's SomeAlibi.

Amusingly, it again makes reference to him being a "trial lawyer" (including he himself making that claim within the article) - but even if he is/was who he represented himself to be, that's misleading at best and a flat-out untruth at worst. Because most people, when they read the term "trial lawyer", picture someone who speaks for the prosecution or the defence in a trial, examines and cross-examines witnesses, and makes arguments to the jury. However, SomeAlibi only ever claimed to be a solicitor. And in England&Wales, only barristers - not solicitors* - are permitted to perform the functions associated with the generally-understood term "trial lawyer". He might have sat in on criminal trials and provided his barrister with information, but he'd never once have uttered a single word in a court.


* Solicitors can represent defendants in misdemeanour-level offences (dealt with in E&W in Magistrates' Courts), and some relatively-minor offences in Crown Courts will allow for representation by solicitors with additional trial-related qualifications (Solicitor-Advocates). But for any felony-level trial of even moderate seriousness, let alone murder, no solicitor will ever be the one standing up and addressing the court.
This is quite incorrect. A defendant at any level of court in the UK is entitled to have whomever he wants to represent him. It does NOT have to be a barrister.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:36 AM   #1757
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No. Like most expert legal minds, she understands how to weigh up evidence.

It is a common error - and we have seen it here in this thread in buckets - for people to mistake argumentation as having any legal status. Sagnotti was spot on in pointing out that Hellman and Zanetti were civil law judges and had never judged Criminal Law, never mind the most serious crime on statute, murder (aggravated) and as she points out we see this in their amateurish approach of 'anything is possible' or 'the only certainty is the death of Meredith Kercher' as though they were at a Philosophy of Life convention.

LMAO!

Instead of bleating about Hellmann's/Zagnetti's fitness for purpose, perhaps her "legal mind" would have been better employed trying to figure out how & why they were assigned to the appeal in the first place. Because if she's right regarding their fitness for purpose, then there's only two possibilities wrt how they were appointed: either a) those higher up in the judicial service who appointed them were grotesquely incompetent, or b) the appointers were corrupt and had been corrupted.

Now, remind me which of those two possibilities has been investigated (let alone discovered) in the ten years since that appeal trial. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:42 AM   #1758
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is quite incorrect. A defendant at any level of court in the UK is entitled to have whomever he wants to represent him. It does NOT have to be a barrister.

Showing your forensic understanding of criminal trial procedure in England & Wales in all its glory there, Vixen.

Do some actual research on this matter before coming out with horse-manure misstatements such as this. Because - exactly as I said - only barristers can represent clients in moderate-to-serious-level charges in Crown Courts. Solicitors cannot.

(The one and only exception to this is that of course a defendant can choose to represent himself/herself.)
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:43 AM   #1759
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
More ignorance. The point here is that Guede had already been incriminated. He'd been convicted definitively of the crimes including sexually-aggravated murder. There's literally no way he could have further incriminated himself at that point.
Guede did not finalise his legal process until quite recently (comparatively). Certainly not as of the time of Knox and Sollecito's trial.

When will people realise it was not Guede who charged the gruesome duo. Guede did not convict Sollecito and Knox, it was the police, the prosecutor, the forensic scientists, two merits courts which established FACTS that found her GUILTY of aggravated murder after a fair and lengthy trial.

As Sagnotti points out, the pair got off due to a corruption of the system.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:45 AM   #1760
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
LMAO!

Instead of bleating about Hellmann's/Zagnetti's fitness for purpose, perhaps her "legal mind" would have been better employed trying to figure out how & why they were assigned to the appeal in the first place. Because if she's right regarding their fitness for purpose, then there's only two possibilities wrt how they were appointed: either a) those higher up in the judicial service who appointed them were grotesquely incompetent, or b) the appointers were corrupt and had been corrupted.

Now, remind me which of those two possibilities has been investigated (let alone discovered) in the ten years since that appeal trial. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Giulia Bongiorno and her shady contacts.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

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 04:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.