Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Court decisions are influenced by outside forces all the time. That isn't to say they are controlled by those forces. It happens all over the world.

Do people think that rulings on gay marriage and minority rights were not influenced by outside forces or social changes or only strict legal issues?

 

[LondonJohn]

Court decisions are influenced by outside forces all the time. That isn't to say they are controlled by those forces. It happens all over the world.

Do people think that rulings on gay marriage and minority rights were not influenced by outside forces or social changes or only strict legal issues?

Ah but those are issues of (perceived) shifting public morality.

And you might be failing to distinguish between 1) the creation and repealing of laws (which is the job of the executive and the legislature - both of which are supposed to directly represent the people), and 2) the application of those laws (which is the job of the judiciary).

 

[Vixen]

I prefer common sense over osmosis any day. Hellmann's ruling showed common sense, in my opinion.

Law has nothing to do with "common sense." Like tax, it is based on arbitrary rules arising from case law precedents.

 

[LondonJohn]

Law has nothing to do with "common sense." Like tax, it is based on arbitrary rules arising from case law precedents.

Not a big fan of the theory of jurisprudence, or the links between law, ethics and morality then.......?

 

[Kauffer]

Diddly squat.

It is easier to go to the railway station or the pub - or even a shop [in England, we have shops that will "unlock" stolen mobiles and laptops for you] - and buy your cheapo laptop there.

No income tax. No VAT.

No questions asked.

Look, I am not saying Rudy did not steal the laptop himself. However, there is no compelling reason to reasonably believe he did.

I worked at a place where overnight, burglar s broke in and stole all the computers, hacking off cumbersome cables. It is a very common crime. It is a huge logic fallacy to boldly assert, "Rudy was responsible for all the laptop thefts in Perugia."

I remember this case! It was at at a McDonalds right?

This is not the best logical fallacy. The best one was when you said that because Amanda's lamp was in Kercher's room, she put it there! That was a humdinger.

 

[Dan O.]

In any case, most of us are anonymous and could all be dogs, so any stats are suspect.

Look around Alex. Several of the pro innocence posters are using their real names. Several others have revealed their identities. And most of the rest at least use the same screen name wherever they discuss this case. The truely anonymous posters on the pro innocence side are in the minority. Is there even one pro guilt poster that posts under their true identity?

 

[lonepinealex]

Look around Alex. Several of the pro innocence posters are using their real names. Several others have revealed their identities. And most of the rest at least use the same screen name wherever they discuss this case. The truely anonymous posters on the pro innocence side are in the minority. Is there even one pro guilt poster that posts under their true identity?

Yes, yes. That was not my point. I was just trying to understand what makes Samson think I'm of a similar age to Vixen (even assuming Vixen is female) and why this would matter if true.

 

[Kauffer]

It's just my personal opinion. There are two leading theories as to the reason for the acquittals:

1. Mafia intervention (bribery and corruption)*
2. US State intervention

As no new evidence was introduced at the appeal stage, nor new legal points not already argued at trial, we can conclude the annulment was nothing to do with the evidence and facts found by Massei and Nencini.

*This theory includes Hellmanns intervention.

You can't conclude anything of the sort. Massei and Nencini didn't find any evidence. Their findings of fact have been debunked by a superior court because they were contrary to law.

The leading theory for the acquittals is actual innocence. The Supreme Court probably also realised Italy was going to get creamed by the ECHR.

 

[Kauffer]

Ask Nina Burleigh, it's all there in her dirt digging campaign to deflect blame away from her client, Amanda, whose pay she is/was in.

This trial must have cost a fortune. Amanda apparently bought the court appointed experts, the media and even the judges.

The proof that she did this is provided by her acquittal, presumably.

 

[Grinder]

BBC programs on DNA gone bad - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05stg0j

 

[Kauffer]

Calm down. Antony made a flippant comment that Genesis was disproved by by the existence of dinosaurs. I simply asked him to think critically before assuming his possibly mindless comment was true.

As an example, schools were still teaching there were three laws of thermodynamics even in the 90's, more for convenience, rather than ignorance.

I do have nineteen letters after my name, including BSc(Hons).

I think you're mistaken. I can believe it's nineteen letters in your name.

 

[Vixen]

A skeptic would call that: "Appeal to authority".

When discussing legal issues, it is relevant to refer to what was found in court, and thus, is not a logical fallacy.

 

[Vixen]

Now you are either lying or you are not the Vixen that was participating in this thread during the earlier discussion about the phones.

As for Raffaele's story, here is what he said before the judge on November 8:

At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda.
I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.
About that night I remember that the pipe under the sink had unlatched and, while I was washing things in the kitchen, the floor flooded, I tried to dry the floor and then, on Amanda’s suggestion, I let it go. I worked with my computer and then I went to bed. I received a call from my father, who calls me every night before I go to sleep, I do not remember if he called me on the landline phone or on the cell phone.
The next morning Amanda woke up before me, she woke me up telling me that she wanted to go take a shower at her house because she did not like my shower. So she went out and I remained to sleep. She went out at around 9:30 to 10:00. Later she came back, she rung at my door and I woke up. I remember that she had changed her clothes and she was now wearing a white skirt while the day before she was wearing jeans. She carried a mop with her to clean the floor.​

Why is it that you don't know about this retraction of the statement Raffaele made on November 5/6? Do you maintain your ignorance intentionally?

Please highlight the retraction you are referring to.

 

[Dan O.]

Sorry, Dan O., you yourself said you post fake photos to fool the "guilters".

You only fool yourself. That clip is from dsc_0188 from the case file. There is another from Dec 18 showing the box in the corner between the radiator and the patio door.

Your claim is another lie. I already referenced the actual photo that I posted in relation to the "hickey". If you bothered to look you would have seen the full photo with the timestamp printed in red showing that the photo was taken prior to this case even existing. My clip of that photo delibrately left a fragment of the time stamp visible to assist those that choose to research the photos origin. The caption originally posted with that photo was "here is what the "scratch" looked like 4 days later when Amanda was arrested". A side by side comparison of the hickey photo and the police photo taken upon Amanda's arrest shows the virtually identical characteristics of the marks thus making my statement true.

 

[Vixen]

[/B]

Evidence please for this.
Are these Massei and Nencini's opinions like most of your others?

They were seen embracing and shaking hands with the Sollecitos.

 

[anglolawyer]

Law has nothing to do with "common sense." Like tax, it is based on arbitrary rules arising from case law precedents.

Utter piffle from the first word to the last. Vixen, you are straying further and further out into open water, way out of your depth.

 

[Kauffer]

Law has nothing to do with "common sense." Like tax, it is based on arbitrary rules arising from case law precedents.

Case law precedence has little to do with Italian trials. It's a civil law not a common law system - judge made law.

This is one of the major challenges for the Italian system - the ECHR is based on case law and Italy has incorporated the case law of the ECHR into its system. It's civil law judges, however, are not trained how to understand it and apply it.

If I'm not mistaken, there is not one citation from ECHR case law in any of the motivation reports of any one of the three trial courts or any of the pre trial judge's reports or the Chiefi reports despite citation in defence appeals.

 

[Grinder]

They were seen embracing and shaking hands with the Sollecitos.

Vogt was seen kissing Frank...oh my.

Btw, making a statement isn't evidence or a source.

Why would shaking the hands of people that had finally introduced common sense to the court in any way indicate anything. If they hadn't you'd be making the case that it was strange not to acknowledge them.

 

[Kauffer]

When discussing legal issues, it is relevant to refer to what was found in court, and thus, is not a logical fallacy.

But that's not what you do. You merely refer, generally, to the two convicting judges as authorities or else you maintain that their arguments are superior because they are judges.

 

[anglolawyer]

When discussing legal issues, it is relevant to refer to what was found in court, and thus, is not a logical fallacy.

The appeal to authority part is where you say: the court found so-and-so and that fact alone disposes of the issue so far as this discussion is concerned. You have been going even further into illogical realms than this, however. You say the court found X but when told that, in fact, it did not, you ignore the correction and continue blithely on.

Thus, for example, Massei did not find there was a female shoe print left in the bedroom. You have been taken to and shown the exact text and asked to retract this claim which, even if true, would still be no more than an appeal to 'authority' (a word to be used with reservations where Massei is concerned). But you have yet to do so.

I think I am being kind in saying you are beginning to fit nicely into Kaosium's narrow description of 'guilter' as one who's convictions are sustained by falsehoods and who is impervious to argument or correction.