Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike1711 said:
Quite right.

It's whack a mole time again.

Twist the truth. Avoid the question. Change the subject. Say something and say it wasn't said.

It's called deception and lies and goes on and on.
Click to expand...

Right now the lady is implying that Bongiorno wanted the presumed seven stain on the pillow tested as a way to deceive the court.

Talk about whack-a-mole. I remember when guilters were arguing that Bongiorno did not want the stain tested!

So the other strategy is to have both contradictory factoids at the ready, depending on which one you need to make your argument.

It's a living.
 
Planigale said:
You are describing the English common law system not the Italian civil / roman law system. Evolution is fundamentally an English concept. The origin of the civil law system is the neutral investigating magistrate who presents the facts to the court. The prosecuting magistrate directs the investigation by the police. The civil law systems have a codified law system and do not have case law and precedent. You frequently make the error of assuming the way things are done in England are the way they are done everywhere.
Click to expand...

Nowhere have I made the claim UK/US law is the same as Italian/Latin European law. In fact, I have pointed out the differences on several occasions.

The origin of law in England & Wales derives from ancient Anglo-Saxon law, which was basically an eye-for-an eye, which evolved into a system of cash reparations for different types of wrongs. In the case of Anglo Saxon warriors the complaints revolved around injuries to the body (hence the origin of the word, 'injury' in legal claims) and a system came about where the loss of a hand was worth £X, the loss of a leg £Y, the loss of an eye, £Z. (Actually, expressed as 'shillings'.) Thus the system of compensation was born, and remains today, being rather more practical than duels at dawn and bitter vendettas.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Right now the lady is implying that Bongiorno wanted the presumed seven stain on the pillow tested as a way to deceive the court.

Talk about whack-a-mole. I remember when guilters were arguing that Bongiorno did not want the stain tested!

So the other strategy is to have both contradictory factoids at the ready, depending on which one you need to make your argument.

It's a living.
Click to expand...

Read Raff's book wherein he spells it out his team (i.e., he himself) didn't want the stain tested, in case it turned out to be his.

Logical fallacy #309: pretend to throw a hissy fit rather than admit you are wrong.
 
Planigale said:
Here is exactly the problem. The court is not supposed to find the most probable sequence of events. Given that there may be a choice between may sequences of events (e.g. Guede alone, Guede and unknown others, Knox alone, Sollecito alone, Knox and Sollecito, Knox and Sollecito and Guede), the most probable may be in itself be unlikely. Even if it is felt to be the most likely and be likely beyond 50% (the burden of proof in a non criminal case), that is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. A 49% likelihood of innocence is reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

What happens in reality, the court accepts one side or the other. In the case of the Kercher supreme court appeal, Marasca accepted Bongiono's appeal, which is why it the MR is a hotch potch of nonsense as they have simply cut and pasted her arguments. ('Police flaws', 'too much press', contamination - which was never established or proven, but simply inserted by Prof Gill, who was never cross-examined.)
 
Vixen said:
Read Raff's book wherein he spells it out his team (i.e., he himself) didn't want the stain tested, in case it turned out to be his.

Logical fallacy #309: pretend to throw a hissy fit rather than admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Let's at least find out what it is you are trying to claim.

Was it:

1) Bongiorno wanted the semen on the pillow tested, or

2) Raffaele did not want it tested?​
I'm not sure you're aware that you've just proved my claim about you. Follow the thread back to see and reread what my claim about you was.

ETA - his book relates he did not want it tested because he was afraid they would manufacture evidence against him, like they did with the bra-clasp evidence. And like they did in claiming that one of his kitchen knives was the murder weapon.

ETA2 - How many cringe worthy posts can one person make? Time to put said poster on ignore. Again. I never learn.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I find your prose so flowery, I have to speed read it, filtering out all the verbosity.
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised? You see, if one is going to issue a "rebuttal" to a written argument, it's rather incumbent upon one to read said written argument carefully for comprehension before wading in with a rebuttal. It's kind of an informal rule of decent, honest debate. And if less than 200 words of original argument are too many to read properly, then god help proper lawyers dealing with thousands and thousands of words of legal argument. Gosh, that must be very difficult for them, eh?! :p



Firstly, there is no way the prosecutor would bring a case based on the sole say so of Mr B. It would expect a full dossier of what case the police have built up to feel confident of bringing a charge.

Secondly, as Mr B was not there, it would be a simple issue of Mr A's counsel illustrating this in their cross-examination of him. He would have no real proof he was there. He would be unable to provide a plausible timeline,
or describe the crime scene.

Even if by a fluke the case came to trial based solely on Mr B's claim, then the system kicks in. The onus is on the prosecution to prove it. The court will identify that Mr A's presence is disputed, at a preliminary stage, and it will be listed as an "issue" for the court to examine.

The issue of whether or not Mr B or Mr A was there will be dispensed with very easily and the case thrown out.

If the system fails and Mr A is somehow convicted, then as soon the fact of Mr B being on an aeroplane as of the time of the crime (and there was no way of knowing this as of the duration of the hearing) then this would qualify as genuine new evidence, and a new trial ordered. (ETA But only if Mr B's eye-witness claim was the sole evidence and none other.)

So you see, the system works.
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised? I was constructing a small (and easily-comprehensible to most people who bothered to read it....) example to show just one obvious instance (there are myriad (that means "lots")) where a "judicial fact" (in this example: "Mr B was present at the scene of the murder and saw/recognised Mr A commit the murder") can be rendered incorrect and obsolete. It matters not one whit (check out the flowery verbosity?!!!) which example I used to show how easily a judicial fact can subsequently be nullified, and it's totally irrelevant to the example to waffle about whether or not Mr A was convicted upon the strength of this evidence alone, nor whether Mr A's defence counsel was incompetent in his/her cross-examination of Mr B on the stand. But you seem not to know that. Why (in a nice symmetry) am I not surprised.....?

Was that paragraph too long, by the way?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Nowhere have I made the claim UK/US law is the same as Italian/Latin European law. In fact, I have pointed out the differences on several occasions.

The origin of law in England & Wales derives from ancient Anglo-Saxon law, which was basically an eye-for-an eye, which evolved into a system of cash reparations for different types of wrongs. In the case of Anglo Saxon warriors the complaints revolved around injuries to the body (hence the origin of the word, 'injury' in legal claims) and a system came about where the loss of a hand was worth £X, the loss of a leg £Y, the loss of an eye, £Z. (Actually, expressed as 'shillings'.) Thus the system of compensation was born, and remains today, being rather more practical than duels at dawn and bitter vendettas.
Click to expand...

When exactly did you make up this story?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Why am I not surprised? You see, if one is going to issue a "rebuttal" to a written argument, it's rather incumbent upon one to read said written argument carefully for comprehension before wading in with a rebuttal. It's kind of an informal rule of decent, honest debate. And if less than 200 words of original argument are too many to read properly, then god help proper lawyers dealing with thousands and thousands of words of legal argument. Gosh, that must be very difficult for them, eh?! :p






Why am I not surprised? I was constructing a small (and easily-comprehensible to most people who bothered to read it....) example to show just one obvious instance (there are myriad (that means "lots")) where a "judicial fact" (in this example: "Mr B was present at the scene of the murder and saw/recognised Mr A commit the murder") can be rendered incorrect and obsolete. It matters not one whit (check out the flowery verbosity?!!!) which example I used to show how easily a judicial fact can subsequently be nullified, and it's totally irrelevant to the example to waffle about whether or not Mr A was convicted upon the strength of this evidence alone, nor whether Mr A's defence counsel was incompetent in his/her cross-examination of Mr B on the stand. But you seem not to know that. Why (in a nice symmetry) am I not surprised.....?

Was that paragraph too long, by the way?
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't 'get easily nullified'. Imagine you've had the trial and it consequently turns out that a fact found that Mr C left his abode at 10:00 was wrong and someone comes up with proof it was 10:10. Does an appeal get allowed on those grounds? Is it a mistrial? Does a retrial get ordered? Does Mr C get a pardon.


No, no, no, NO!!!
 
Vixen said:
It's not my problem if I am better educated.
Click to expand...

Droning on about your education and Anglo-Saxon history when neither are remotely relevant to this discussion is the mystery in question.

Oh, and better educated than what?
 
Vixen said:
No, it doesn't 'get easily nullified'. Imagine you've had the trial and it consequently turns out that a fact found that Mr C left his abode at 10:00 was wrong and someone comes up with proof it was 10:10. Does an appeal get allowed on those grounds? Is it a mistrial? Does a retrial get ordered? Does Mr C get a pardon.


No, no, no, NO!!!
Click to expand...

Oh boy, LJ. Just give up before Mr D does it in the drawing room with the candlestick.

:jaw-dropp:boggled::boggled:
 
acbytesla said:
That's doubtful.
Click to expand...

Er, you and Mike claimed it was a 'story' the Anglo Saxons had a reparation scheme.


In other parts of England, where the cost of one sheep set the value of a shilling, the value of a nobleman was 1200 shillings, with 200 shillings for the value a freeman. Under King Alfred the Great, acts of mutilation required specific compensation: 30 shillings for cutting off an ear, 60 for a nose, 9 for a finger and 20 for a toe. Women held the same wergild as male members of their class, and pregnant women had their own value, plus half of that for an unborn child.
Click to expand...


http://unusualhistoricals.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/money-matters-anglo-saxon-wergild.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom