ISF Logo   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

Closed Thread
Old 27th July 2017, 01:16 PM   #1
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 639
Mod Info Continued from here. As usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous iteration[s] of this thread.
Posted By:Agatha





Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It matters not a jot how intentional their usage. A judge does not have the authority to change a law.

Nowhere in Art 530,2 do the words 'did not commit the act' appear.

There is no way Marasca or you can wish it so.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...March-2015.pdf

Della rubric per non a vere I ricorrenti commesso il fatto
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett

Last edited by Agatha; 27th July 2017 at 02:51 PM.
toto 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 27th July 2017, 01:49 PM   #2
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
Vixen,
If there is insufficient evidence to convict, do you believe the correct conclusion is "they probably did it anyway it's just a bummer they didn't leave any evidence behind"?

In other words, do you think presumption of innocence is a bad thing? Does it get in the way of burning witches, err I mean locking the pagan she devil Amanda up in prison for life?
It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene
two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 27th July 2017, 01:50 PM   #3
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Nice try in trying to turn this into an ad hominem aimed at me.

Fact is Sction 530.2 acquittals include acquittals when evidence is missing, and the phrase "did not commit the act" is quite appropriate to use when that kind of 530.2 Acquittal is found.

Quit trying to play lawyer.
It is simple logic.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 27th July 2017, 01:51 PM   #4
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do not understand that a law cannot contradict itself. In so doing it becomes void.

A law cannot both say 'insufficient evidence' AND 'did not commit the act'. It would be a contradiction in terms.

Now do you understand?
Nonsense!!

Of course law can contradict itself.

Example - OJ Simpson "not guilty" in a criminal court and "guilty" in a civil court. Civil law and criminal law often contradict.

Do you want an example of criminal law contradicting itself? Look no closer than my own country South Africa and Nelson Mandela.

Do you think "insufficient evidence" and "did not commit the act" are mutually exclusive? They are not.

...but hey...you're the expert. Let's just say you are correct. The law cannot contradict itself? Think about the own goal you just scored in the AK/RS case....

The final verdict is "not guilty"
The previous verdicts were "guilty", "not guilty", "guilty" and finally "not guilty" (hint: I deliberately avoided the term "innocent" to pre-empt a likely obtuse response).
Now you say the law cannot contradict itself which means...?
...all previous verdicts are trumped because the law cannot contradict itself.

At last we agree
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 27th July 2017, 01:54 PM   #5
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
Nonsense!!

Of course law can contradict itself.

Example - OJ Simpson "not guilty" in a criminal court and "guilty" in a civil court. Civil law and criminal law often contradict.

Do you want an example of criminal law contradicting itself? Look no closer than my own country South Africa and Nelson Mandela.

Do you think "insufficient evidence" and "did not commit the act" are mutually exclusive? They are not.

...but hey...you're the expert. Let's just say you are correct. The law cannot contradict itself? Think about the own goal you just scored in the AK/RS case....

The final verdict is "not guilty"
The previous verdicts were "guilty", "not guilty", "guilty" and finally "not guilty".
Now you say the law cannot contradict itself which means...?
...all previous verdicts are trumped because the law cannot contradict itself.

At last we agree
Your example has nothing to do with contradiction.

A criminal court requires proof 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' (and as decided by a jury or tribunal of judges equivalent).

A civil court only requires a probability of 51% to 49% for you to win your case.

It is a fact of contract law (and law is all about contracts of one sort or another) that if you have just one clause that contradicts another, the entire contract is repudiated (=worthless).
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 27th July 2017, 01:58 PM   #6
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not really, because Judges are not free to interpret the law in Italy. They have to learn the CPP off by heart and stick to it, to the letter.
Law is often about interpretation.
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 27th July 2017, 01:59 PM   #7
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene
two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.
And if they cannot say one way or another due to lack of evidence, the conclusion is innocent. This is presumption of innocence, Vixen. Do you understand that now?

The two merits courts were also overruled by the Italian Supreme Court because they exhibited extremely faulty logic and the investigation was completely botched. Do you remember that part?
NotEvenWrong 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 27th July 2017, 02:31 PM   #8
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is simple logic.
Huh!? This response is meaningless.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 27th July 2017, 03:21 PM   #9
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your example has nothing to do with contradiction.

A criminal court requires proof 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' (and as decided by a jury or tribunal of judges equivalent).

A civil court only requires a probability of 51% to 49% for you to win your case.

It is a fact of contract law (and law is all about contracts of one sort or another) that if you have just one clause that contradicts another, the entire contract is repudiated (=worthless).
So because a civil court requires a 51/49 majority it therefore cannot contradict a criminal court, despite the fact that the ruling or verdict is contradictory?

Right???...
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 27th July 2017, 03:52 PM   #10
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,936
Aaaaaaaaand we're back! How good

I wonder how Vixen marries her "understanding" of BARD (and the metaphysical "truth" this may or may not represent) with, say, a situation where a court found Stefan Kiszko guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that he raped and murdered Lesley Molseed - a verdict subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal in his first appeal - yet later information came to light proving Kiszko's total factual innocence.....?

How could that BE, Vixen???? How could a (lower) court have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiszko had killed Molseed, when we now know that for certain Kiszko did not kill Molseed.

And what lessons can we take from a case like that one to the fiasco which comprised the Knox/Sollecito trial process for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Vixen? In your answer, please make particular reference to the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down by the Massei and Nencini courts, and correlate them with the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down on Kiszko in his trial (with a cross-reference to the fact that we now know that Kiszko factually did not commit the murder).
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 27th July 2017, 05:28 PM   #11
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vixen

Do watch the video - I believe you yourself provided the link - I don't see Pringle or Jacobs correcting the hostess about the false claims.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and watch it. Nowhere does the hostess...or anyone... say that Pringle was on death row for 15 years. What she did say was that Sunny and Peter had spent 15 years or more in prison...not on death row. You don't see them correcting her because she didn't say it.

You claimed Pringle said he was on death row for 15 years. I asked you to quote him and give a citation for this. You failed to do so and instead moved the goalpost to saying he didn't correct the hostess...for something she didn't do in the first place. I suggest you put that goalpost on wheels considering the amount of moving it's getting.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 27th July 2017 at 05:38 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 27th July 2017, 06:07 PM   #12
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,659
Vixen wrote:
Quote:
As Grinder patiently tried to tell you, over and over again, 'did not commit the act' was merely a template error. IOW the clerk writing up the MR used a template and omitted to scrub out the erroneous phrase.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11936331

I certainly have no recollection of that. Would you like to provide evidence that Grinder ever said any such thing to me? I'll be waiting but I won't be holding my breath.

To declare this is a template and that the clerk failed to erase the phrase is ludicrous and unsupported by any evidence. Quelle surprise. Of course, if this were true, an amended report would be submitted with this being a legal document and all I'd think. Care to provide it?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 27th July 2017 at 06:40 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th July 2017, 06:02 AM   #13
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Aaaaaaaaand we're back! How good

I wonder how Vixen marries her "understanding" of BARD (and the metaphysical "truth" this may or may not represent) with, say, a situation where a court found Stefan Kiszko guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that he raped and murdered Lesley Molseed - a verdict subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal in his first appeal - yet later information came to light proving Kiszko's total factual innocence.....?

How could that BE, Vixen???? How could a (lower) court have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiszko had killed Molseed, when we now know that for certain Kiszko did not kill Molseed.

And what lessons can we take from a case like that one to the fiasco which comprised the Knox/Sollecito trial process for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Vixen? In your answer, please make particular reference to the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down by the Massei and Nencini courts, and correlate them with the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down on Kiszko in his trial (with a cross-reference to the fact that we now know that Kiszko factually did not commit the murder).
To argue that there must be a valid case for guilt simply because courts have found someone guilty is not valid. There have been other cases in the UK when innocent people have been found guilty and the appeal courts initially turned down appeals. The Birmingham Six is an example. Courts may decide someone is guilty even if there are major problems with the prosecution’s case and the evidence suggests innocence.

The evidence suggests the Massei and Nencini courts were kangaroo courts. The Chieffi court ordered Nencini to find Amanda and Raffaele guilty. As the links below show the arguments used by Massei and Nencini were ridiculous and scientifically illiterate. If there was a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele why did the motivation reports have to resort to using stupid arguments?

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...php?f=20&t=368

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...6&p=3009#p3009

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/nencin...on-conviction/

Nencini’s report was full of falsehoods as detailed below. Why did Nencini have to resort to falsehoods if there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele? Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies. I have pointed out that PGP have displayed disgusting hypocrisy in attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying because they have lied themselves and condoned and ignored the lies of others on an industrial scale. The support for Nencini is another example of this. PGP defend a judge who convicted Amanda and Raffaele on the basis of a motivation report full of lies.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...hp?f=85&t=3011

The fact the prosecution had to resort to the tactics below and Vixen constantly has to resort to falsehoods in her posts makes it clear the prosecution had a weak case, a lack of evidence and the facts did not support the prosecution’s case. In view of this it is not valid to argue the courts must have found Amanda and Raffaele guilty because there was a strong case and a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

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
Welshman 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 Back to Top
Old 28th July 2017, 07:19 AM   #14
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,384
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is simple logic.
If p then q
If not p then q
If p then not q
If not p then not q

That is simple logic.
Samson 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 28th July 2017, 07:24 AM   #15
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,384
For example.
If I am bald I am a man.
If I am not bald then I am a woman.
If I am bald then I am not a woman.
If I am not bald then I am not a woman.

Sorry to digress into simple logic.
Samson 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 28th July 2017, 07:41 AM   #16
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene
two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.
And one merits court decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Not Guilty'. Why is it you always leave this out. It can't be because Cheffi annulled Hellmann since Marasca annulled Nencini yet you reference Nencini all the time. Hmmm...
TruthCalls 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 28th July 2017, 09:10 AM   #17
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
For example.
If I am bald I am a man.
If I am not bald then I am a woman.
If I am bald then I am not a woman.
If I am not bald then I am not a woman.

Sorry to digress into simple logic.
Lt Ilia was bald... your logic is flawed.
TruthCalls 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 28th July 2017, 09:56 AM   #18
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,659
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
And one merits court decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Not Guilty'. Why is it you always leave this out. It can't be because Cheffi annulled Hellmann since Marasca annulled Nencini yet you reference Nencini all the time. Hmmm...
That was a template error. The court clerk simply forgot to remove the "Acquits" and "for not having committed the act" parts. It must have been the same incompetent clerk who wrote up the Marasca/Bruno report.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 28th July 2017 at 09:58 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th July 2017, 11:41 AM   #19
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,836
Canadian wrongful conviction study 2007

As Amanda Knox said last night in L.A. to the Westside Bar Association, it's not as if the dynamics of wrongful convictions are not well known. They are - Saul Kassin's work on false confessions is one aspect of what is well known.

So for one last time, here's a link to a 2007 Canadian wrongful conviction study which highlighted the common themes in most, if not all of them. This study was done before anyone had heard of Mignini and the injustice in Perugia.

http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/..._in_Canada.pdf

Briefly:
- multiple acts of misconduct by multiple authorities in "the system"
- conduct of the police
- conduct of prosecutors, judges, and forensic scientists
- conduct of defence lawyers
- tunnel vision surrounding an early theory
- mistaken eyewitness identification
- false confessions
- use of in-custody informers
- public pressure to convict
- intense media coverage
Remember this report is from 2007. The report which is at the link references Canadian Inquiries from 1989 to 2007 which are said to be some of the most comprehensive in the world, as well as the common themes found in those 18 years.
Quote:
Canada’s public inquiry process has been cited repeatedly
by American legislators, scholars and jurists as being worthy of adoption in the United States.

A wrongful conviction conference that took place at Harvard University in April 2002 included,
“at almost every panel, someone [rising] to point to the Canadian experience as a model for US
reform”. At the same time, scholars such as Professor Keith Findley caution that states such as
the US could avoid “mustering the fortitude to engage in the type of painful (and expensive)
individual-case self-scrutiny the Canadians have undertaken in [their public] inquiries” by
forming study commissions to scrutinize the failings of a justice system as a whole rather than
awaiting high profile exonerations in an individual case.
So, rather than reinventing the wheel in concert only with each high-profile wrongful conviction, the following are some of the (common) recommendations coming out of each individual, Canadian Royal Commission:
- police training include race relations
- that court services include on-call language interpreters
- undue reliance on forensic experts, when other more relevant forensics is missing
- examining and identifying (early) flawed and inadequate police investigations
- mandatory videotaping of all police interviews with suspects
- mandatory training for police and prosecutors on "tunnel vision"
- permanent storage of evidence and police notebooks
- independent review of claims of wrongful conviction
- inadequate disclosure of evidence by prosecutors
Anyway, no need to summarize the whole paper here.

The point being, it's not as if identifying wrongful convictions is rocket science. At some point all it takes is an authority in the system showing that the king has no clothes.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 28th July 2017 at 11:44 AM.
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 28th July 2017, 12:37 PM   #20
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,659
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
As Amanda Knox said last night in L.A. to the Westside Bar Association, it's not as if the dynamics of wrongful convictions are not well known. They are - Saul Kassin's work on false confessions is one aspect of what is well known.

So for one last time, here's a link to a 2007 Canadian wrongful conviction study which highlighted the common themes in most, if not all of them. This study was done before anyone had heard of Mignini and the injustice in Perugia.

http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/..._in_Canada.pdf

Briefly:
- multiple acts of misconduct by multiple authorities in "the system"
- conduct of the police
- conduct of prosecutors, judges, and forensic scientists
- conduct of defence lawyers
- tunnel vision surrounding an early theory
- mistaken eyewitness identification
- false confessions
- use of in-custody informers
- public pressure to convict
- intense media coverage
Remember this report is from 2007. The report which is at the link references Canadian Inquiries from 1989 to 2007 which are said to be some of the most comprehensive in the world, as well as the common themes found in those 18 years.
So, rather than reinventing the wheel in concert only with each high-profile wrongful conviction, the following are some of the (common) recommendations coming out of each individual, Canadian Royal Commission:
- police training include race relations
- that court services include on-call language interpreters
- undue reliance on forensic experts, when other more relevant forensics is missing
- examining and identifying (early) flawed and inadequate police investigations
- mandatory videotaping of all police interviews with suspects
- mandatory training for police and prosecutors on "tunnel vision"
- permanent storage of evidence and police notebooks
- independent review of claims of wrongful conviction
- inadequate disclosure of evidence by prosecutors
Anyway, no need to summarize the whole paper here.

The point being, it's not as if identifying wrongful convictions is rocket science. At some point all it takes is an authority in the system showing that the king has no clothes.
Excellent. I think the most important rule, never to be broken, is that all interrogations must be videotaped. It protects both those being interviewed/interrogated and the police.

I also think that Italy's system of having the prosecutor lead and direct the police investigation is highly flawed. Prosecutors are looking for evidence of guilt, not innocence. It is inherent in the prosecution mentality. Mignini, by his own admission, saw Amanda and Raff guilty from the very beginning. The police should be independent of the prosecution, control the investigation, and then report their findings to the prosecution.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th July 2017, 05:06 PM   #21
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Excellent. I think the most important rule, never to be broken, is that all interrogations must be videotaped. It protects both those being interviewed/interrogated and the police.

I also think that Italy's system of having the prosecutor lead and direct the police investigation is highly flawed. Prosecutors are looking for evidence of guilt, not innocence. It is inherent in the prosecution mentality. Mignini, by his own admission, saw Amanda and Raff guilty from the very beginning. The police should be independent of the prosecution, control the investigation, and then report their findings to the prosecution.
Having a prosecutor leading the investigation can create disastrous consequences when you have corrupt prosecutors such as Mignini running investigations.
Welshman 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 Back to Top
Old 28th July 2017, 05:12 PM   #22
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,659
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Having a prosecutor leading the investigation can create disastrous consequences when you have corrupt prosecutors such as Mignini running investigations.
It can have disastrous consequences even when the prosecutor is honest and trying to do the job as well as possible. Why? Because prosecutors inherently see things from a guilt viewpoint. It's their job to prove BARD a defendant's guilt, not innocence.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th July 2017, 05:21 PM   #23
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It can have disastrous consequences even when the prosecutor is honest and trying to do the job as well as possible. Why? Because prosecutors inherently see things from a guilt viewpoint. It's their job to prove BARD a defendant's guilt, not innocence.
Not exactly, a prosecutor (here, at least) could be facing a slam-dunk BARD case, and still not proceed. Prosecutors (here) also have the responsibility to discern if it is "in the public interest" to do so.

From this vantage point Mignini was not so much corrupt in 2007, as he was desperate for a win. At the time he'd been provisionally convicted of abuse of office - when he lost in 2011 he told reporters his troubles had started with the Narducci case.

Then others took over from him.... he cannot be said to have been responsible for the 2013 ISC reversal, nor the 2014 reconviction. There was something else going on after Mignini that still has not been fully exposed.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 28th July 2017 at 05:30 PM.
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 28th July 2017, 06:45 PM   #24
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,659
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Not exactly, a prosecutor (here, at least) could be facing a slam-dunk BARD case, and still not proceed. Prosecutors (here) also have the responsibility to discern if it is "in the public interest" to do so.

From this vantage point Mignini was not so much corrupt in 2007, as he was desperate for a win. At the time he'd been provisionally convicted of abuse of office - when he lost in 2011 he told reporters his troubles had started with the Narducci case.

Then others took over from him.... he cannot be said to have been responsible for the 2013 ISC reversal, nor the 2014 reconviction. There was something else going on after Mignini that still has not been fully exposed.
I agree that Mignini was not responsible for any of the trials but the first one. Nor do think that he was "corrupt". I think he was sincere in his beliefs, if misguided, and that he was desperate for a "win". This need colored his investigation and influenced his actions. But my point is that prosecutors are inherently guilt biased. It's their job to convict the defendant and that affects how they see things and what they do.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 07:27 AM   #25
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by toto View Post
Mod Info Continued from here. As usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous iteration[s] of this thread.
Posted By:Agatha







http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...March-2015.pdf

Della rubric per non a vere I ricorrenti commesso il fatto


<fx deep sigh>
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 29th July 2017, 07:29 AM   #26
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
Law is often about interpretation.
Italian judges are not allowed to interpret law, as it Italian Law is not common law and is not based on case precedent. It is strictly based on the CPP to the letter.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 29th July 2017, 07:31 AM   #27
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
And if they cannot say one way or another due to lack of evidence, the conclusion is innocent. This is presumption of innocence, Vixen. Do you understand that now?

The two merits courts were also overruled by the Italian Supreme Court because they exhibited extremely faulty logic and the investigation was completely botched. Do you remember that part?
The panel of jurors/judges at both merits hearing came down fairly and squarely on 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 29th July 2017, 07:34 AM   #28
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
So because a civil court requires a 51/49 majority it therefore cannot contradict a criminal court, despite the fact that the ruling or verdict is contradictory?

Right???...

a) We were talking about the wording of statutes, not 'law in general'. Of course there are contradictions in that sense, or people would never be allowed to appeal.

b) It is a fact that the standard of legal proof required in a criminal court is much stiffer than in a civil court where you only need to show >50% probability that your case has merit. The reason OJ was found against in a civil court is for that reason. In a murder case, in particular, the bar is very high. Thus, we can be confident that the courts that found Knox and Raff guilty of aggravated murder knew exactly what they were doing and why, despite reluctance because of their age, they found them Guilty, as charged and proven BARD.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834

Last edited by Vixen; 29th July 2017 at 07:37 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 29th July 2017, 07:36 AM   #29
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Aaaaaaaaand we're back! How good

I wonder how Vixen marries her "understanding" of BARD (and the metaphysical "truth" this may or may not represent) with, say, a situation where a court found Stefan Kiszko guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that he raped and murdered Lesley Molseed - a verdict subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal in his first appeal - yet later information came to light proving Kiszko's total factual innocence.....?

How could that BE, Vixen???? How could a (lower) court have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiszko had killed Molseed, when we now know that for certain Kiszko did not kill Molseed.

And what lessons can we take from a case like that one to the fiasco which comprised the Knox/Sollecito trial process for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Vixen? In your answer, please make particular reference to the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down by the Massei and Nencini courts, and correlate them with the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down on Kiszko in his trial (with a cross-reference to the fact that we now know that Kiszko factually did not commit the murder).

Kiszko's conviction was found unsafe because his doctor in endrinocology came forward to give expert testimony that Kiszko was infertile so unlikely he could have left his bodily fluids.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 29th July 2017, 07:45 AM   #30
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The panel of jurors/judges at both merits hearing came down fairly and squarely on 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'.
.... except for the merits court which found them not guilty of aggravated murder. Except for the Italian Supreme Court when reviewing the Nencini conviction, which annulled the conviction showing how, in law, the Nencini court should have acquitted with the evidence in front of it.

You always leave that part out.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 08:57 AM   #31
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The panel of jurors/judges at both merits hearing came down fairly and squarely on 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'.
And they were both overturned by the highest court in Italy, because they made egregious errors in logic and the investigation was completely botched. I am pretty sure you remember this, so I am guessing you are just choosing to willfully ignore it?

Have you ever come up with a reason why there are zero independent scientists that have spoken out, published papers, given lectures, etc. in favor of the prosecution? Wouldn't you think if there was this massive error on the part of the Italian Supreme Court there would be at least one professional scientist explaining why? But instead all of the scientists are in support of the defense's case? Including several of the top forensic geneticists in the world? Does this twist your brain into pretzels or do you simply choose not to think about it much...?
NotEvenWrong 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 29th July 2017, 09:00 AM   #32
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,438
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Italian judges are not allowed to interpret law, as it Italian Law is not common law and is not based on case precedent. It is strictly based on the CPP to the letter.
This is of course the problem. European human rights law supersedes Italian law. The ECHR reports cases that define the law. Italian judges need to interpret Italian law with ECHR case law in mind. ECHR case law is clear any (reasonable) doubtful issue has to be determined in the defendants favour. The courts were not free to determine that the DNA of Knox was deposited in the bathroom consequent on the murder, since this was not proven. Steffanoni said so! In this situation Marasca's only legal option was to interpret the DNA findings in favour of the defendant.
Planigale 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 29th July 2017, 09:18 AM   #33
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
And they were both overturned by the highest court in Italy, because they made egregious errors in logic and the investigation was completely botched. I am pretty sure you remember this, so I am guessing you are just choosing to willfully ignore it?

Have you ever come up with a reason why there are zero independent scientists that have spoken out, published papers, given lectures, etc. in favor of the prosecution? Wouldn't you think if there was this massive error on the part of the Italian Supreme Court there would be at least one professional scientist explaining why? But instead all of the scientists are in support of the defense's case? Including several of the top forensic geneticists in the world? Does this twist your brain into pretzels or do you simply choose not to think about it much...?
The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.

If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 29th July 2017, 09:20 AM   #34
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.

If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.
Then why was that verdict definitively annulled?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 09:21 AM   #35
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
This is of course the problem. European human rights law supersedes Italian law. The ECHR reports cases that define the law. Italian judges need to interpret Italian law with ECHR case law in mind. ECHR case law is clear any (reasonable) doubtful issue has to be determined in the defendants favour. The courts were not free to determine that the DNA of Knox was deposited in the bathroom consequent on the murder, since this was not proven. Steffanoni said so! In this situation Marasca's only legal option was to interpret the DNA findings in favour of the defendant.
The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to just three perpetrators, and allows one to see the gestlt:

Amanda Knox
Rudy Guede (whom Knox covered up for)
Raffaele Sollecito (who lost track of all his lies).
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834

Last edited by Vixen; 29th July 2017 at 09:22 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 29th July 2017, 09:23 AM   #36
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Then why was that verdict definitively annulled?
Political reasons.

The Italians didn't want to see their boy serve life whilst the person found guilty of the actual killing roams free in the USA.
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 29th July 2017, 09:33 AM   #37
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Political reasons.

The Italians didn't want to see their boy serve life whilst the person found guilty of the actual killing roams free in the USA.
Wait a minute, Rudy is not roaming free in the USA.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 09:38 AM   #38
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to just three perpetrators, and allows one to see the gestlt:

Amanda Knox
Rudy Guede (whom Knox covered up for)
Raffaele Sollecito (who lost track of all his lies).
Simply stating this - and repeating it ad naseam - does not make it true. At some point you have to address the ten or twelve outstanding questions to you about this which you simply refuse to address.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 09:39 AM   #39
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.
And the court found them innocent, remember?


Quote:
If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.
I am starting to think your brain has twisted reality to such an extent that you actually think Amanda (and Raf, remember him?) were ultimately found guilty by the highest court in Italy. Remember, all authorities, legal and scientific, have unequivocally found they are innocent and Rudy killed Meredith alone. (did your brain just completely black out when you read that and enter another reality? Honest question)
NotEvenWrong 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 29th July 2017, 09:43 AM   #40
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 758
Vixen honestly does not realize anything has happened since Massei in 2009. Anyone else worried about her?
NotEvenWrong 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

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 01:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.