|
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. |
27th July 2017, 01:16 PM | #1 | ||
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 733
|
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 |
|||
27th July 2017, 01:49 PM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
27th July 2017, 01:50 PM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
27th July 2017, 01:51 PM | #4 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
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 |
27th July 2017, 01:54 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
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). |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
27th July 2017, 01:58 PM | #6 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
|
27th July 2017, 01:59 PM | #7 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 910
|
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? |
27th July 2017, 02:31 PM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
27th July 2017, 03:21 PM | #9 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 624
|
|
27th July 2017, 03:52 PM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
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). |
27th July 2017, 05:28 PM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Quote:
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. |
27th July 2017, 06:07 PM | #12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Vixen wrote:
Quote:
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? |
28th July 2017, 06:02 AM | #13 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
|
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 |
28th July 2017, 07:19 AM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
28th July 2017, 07:24 AM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
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. |
28th July 2017, 07:41 AM | #16 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
|
|
28th July 2017, 09:10 AM | #17 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
|
|
28th July 2017, 09:56 AM | #18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
28th July 2017, 11:41 AM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
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"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 relationsAnyway, 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. |
|
28th July 2017, 12:37 PM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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. |
28th July 2017, 05:06 PM | #21 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
|
|
28th July 2017, 05:12 PM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
28th July 2017, 05:21 PM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
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. |
|
28th July 2017, 06:45 PM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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.
|
29th July 2017, 07:27 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 07:29 AM | #26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 07:31 AM | #27 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 07:34 AM | #28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
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. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 07:36 AM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 07:45 AM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
.... 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. |
|
29th July 2017, 08:57 AM | #31 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 910
|
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...? |
29th July 2017, 09:00 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,754
|
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.
|
29th July 2017, 09:18 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
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. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 09:20 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
29th July 2017, 09:21 AM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 09:23 AM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th July 2017, 09:33 AM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
29th July 2017, 09:38 AM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
29th July 2017, 09:39 AM | #39 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 910
|
And the court found them innocent, remember?
Quote:
|
29th July 2017, 09:43 AM | #40 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 910
|
Vixen honestly does not realize anything has happened since Massei in 2009. Anyone else worried about her?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|