Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
What I do know, is that you pretend to be educated. Butt your posts consistently belie that act.
Click to expand...

Look, it's only relevant insofar as Planigale claimed civil law is not based on case law, when it very much is and made up a claim that I said 'law was the same the world over'. S/he then went on to claim the origins of courts as we know it was to do with magistrates and so on. Enter Anglo-Saxon origins.

Then you and Mike jumped in claiming this was untrue.


Understand the relevance now?
 
Vixen said:
Look, it's only relevant insofar as Planigale claimed civil law is not based on case law, when it very much is and made up a claim that I said 'law was the same the world over'. S/he then went on to claim the origins of courts as we know it was to do with magistrates and so on. Enter Anglo-Saxon origins.

Then you and Mike jumped in claiming this was untrue.


Understand the relevance now?
Click to expand...

I did???

Care to refer me?
 
Vixen said:
I don't speak Italian, but I assume what you are actually highlighting are the four subsections of para 230.1, which are numbered 1 - 4.
Click to expand...
No, I don't...
It's interesting how a typo can get a live of its own.
It's article 530 cpp not article 230 (of whatever code)...
But I guess, accuracy doesn't matter, because - if I understand your position correctly - the details and the truth doesn't matter at all, it's the "judicial truth" that counts... :(
 
Vixen said:
Look, it's only relevant insofar as Planigale claimed civil law is not based on case law, when it very much is and made up a claim that I said 'law was the same the world over'. S/he then went on to claim the origins of courts as we know it was to do with magistrates and so on. Enter Anglo-Saxon origins.

Then you and Mike jumped in claiming this was untrue.


Understand the relevance now?
Click to expand...

It's not relevant at all. It's baloney.
 
Vixen said:
No. I was raising the question as to whether Luca is a reliable witness as far as the pair are concerned, as he backed them up quite a few times.
Click to expand...

But he's reliable when it comes to the door of Meredith Kercher's room and the "glass"?
Cherrypicking, this one is...
yoda.gif
 
Mike1711 said:
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?
Click to expand...


And the area of Anglo-Saxon law quoted (which was Weregeld) is simply the antecedent of modern-day personal-injury compensation law in common law systems*. Which is strictly a civil law matter. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox/Sollecito case. Which was a criminal law case (albeit with a civil-law equivalent compensation case running in parallel - a case that's thankfully now been extinguished by the SC annulments).

So quite what that strange little "education lesson" added to the debate is well beyond me, and (I suspect) well beyond most rational participants in this debate.


* Just as the Weregeld laws specified certain amounts of payment due for a certain injury, so modern compensation law uses legal precedent in its awarding of compensation to those suing in respect of certain injuries. Except that the modern system is a heck of a lot better, in that it's reliant on precedent rather than arbitrary amounts, and it's far more flexible in considering all the factors (chiefly those with financial implications) in determining the sum awarded, rather than a "one size fits all" award for any given injury.
 
Mike1711 said:
Oh boy, LJ. Just give up before Mr D does it in the drawing room with the candlestick.

:jaw-dropp:boggled::boggled:
Click to expand...


Hehehehehe. Yep, I'm giving up, owing to a clear inability/unwillingness to comprehend, in spite of repeated (and rather simple) explanations. Put that down as a judicial fact :D
 
Vixen said:
As most murders and many crimes are committed under conditions of utmost stealth, with the perpetrator determined to get away with it under any circumstance, a court is faced with having to determine the defendant's guilt or lack thereof. To do this, they have to establish the facts.
Click to expand...

Why do you make comments like this? I sincerely doubt that this is true. It may or may not be true but I KNOW that you don't know it either. I'd bet most murders are in fact the result of anger in a moment as opposed to anything stealthy and pemeditated.
Vixen said:
In the Kercher case, Raff and Amanda may well sneer the facts found are wrong, as Massei didn't have the privilege to be there. However, using the technique of ascertaining what the most probable sequence of events were, and with all parties being free to present evidence and counter-argument, Massei had no alternative but to find the pair guilty as charged and Nencini upheld it, based purely on all the evidence presented before it.
Click to expand...
Another false statement, in fact it's not the most probable of the sequence of events and Massei's ruling is in fact runs counter to what clearly happened. And that is why the pair were exonerated.

Vixen said:
It might not tell the story 100% accurately, but we can be reasonably sure that the verdict is correct and they did it, even if some of the supposed details of who did what and the motive are a bit abstract. Massei ruled the motive was 'futile' and I believe this perfectly described the cold blooded trivially motivated psychopathy of the perps,
Click to expand...
You mean it is 100 percent inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Look, it's only relevant insofar as Planigale claimed civil law is not based on case law, when it very much is and made up a claim that I said 'law was the same the world over'. S/he then went on to claim the origins of courts as we know it was to do with magistrates and so on. Enter Anglo-Saxon origins.

Then you and Mike jumped in claiming this was untrue.


Understand the relevance now?
Click to expand...

So again you lie about what I said!

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are confusing yourself. Law has evolved over the centuries, building on case law and case precedent in how evidence is to be assessed. Modern law holds that the first step in a trial, after determining which law is alleged to have been breached, is to determine the facts . This will depend heavily in chronology (a timeline) and evidence prsented to the court by either side. The judge is paid to make a finding of fact, not dither over 'hypotheses'.
Click to expand...

I replied.

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...

You clearly do not bother to read what I write before making up your own version. The magistrates I referred to are the investigating magistrates in our case Mignini that are part of current civil / roman law systems.

Civil law systems like Italy or France have codified laws. They do not recognise precedent or case law. This results in a lack of consistency as in each case the law is interpreted anew. Common-law systems do recognise precedent and courts can make law where none exists very different from civil law jurisdictions.

What you are describing as originating from anglo-saxon law is the law of torts. Sadly this just demonstrates that you have completely missed why references to common law as in England is really irrelevant to this case as Italy is a civil / roman law jurisdiction. (I even referenced roman law to try and avoid you confusing with non-criminal law. ) You have confused the law of torts with civil law. \

Sadly your attempted display of erudition only displays your ignorance.
 
Planigale said:
So again you lie about what I said!

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post


I replied.



You clearly do not bother to read what I write before making up your own version. The magistrates I referred to are the investigating magistrates in our case Mignini that are part of current civil / roman law systems.

Civil law systems like Italy or France have codified laws. They do not recognise precedent or case law. This results in a lack of consistency as in each case the law is interpreted anew. Common-law systems do recognise precedent and courts can make law where none exists very different from civil law jurisdictions.

What you are describing as originating from anglo-saxon law is the law of torts. Sadly this just demonstrates that you have completely missed why references to common law as in England is really irrelevant to this case as Italy is a civil / roman law jurisdiction. (I even referenced roman law to try and avoid you confusing with non-criminal law. ) You have confused the law of torts with civil law. \

Sadly your attempted display of erudition only displays your ignorance.
Click to expand...


I probably knew Italian law differed from ours long before you. I have had to explain the difference a few times. There was a case in France long before the Kercher case which had a tedious rigmarole of investigating judges.

Your attempt to portray me as an ignoramus, highlights your own gaps of knowledge as it's clear you have only just got your info from google. On the other hand, I am conversant.

FWIW I have no legal qualifications whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It depends on whether you believe prison is for retribution or rehabilitation.

It's far more humane than the US system of life without parole.
Click to expand...
What is the body count and collateral damage attributable to Guede?
If you were in charge of the system would you require him to tell you exactly where he was when Amanda stabbed Meredith, before you signed his release forms?
 
LondonJohn said:
And the area of Anglo-Saxon law quoted (which was Weregeld) is simply the antecedent of modern-day personal-injury compensation law in common law systems*. Which is strictly a civil law matter. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox/Sollecito case. Which was a criminal law case (albeit with a civil-law equivalent compensation case running in parallel - a case that's thankfully now been extinguished by the SC annulments).

So quite what that strange little "education lesson" added to the debate is well beyond me, and (I suspect) well beyond most rational participants in this debate.


* Just as the Weregeld laws specified certain amounts of payment due for a certain injury, so modern compensation law uses legal precedent in its awarding of compensation to those suing in respect of certain injuries. Except that the modern system is a heck of a lot better, in that it's reliant on precedent rather than arbitrary amounts, and it's far more flexible in considering all the factors (chiefly those with financial implications) in determining the sum awarded, rather than a "one size fits all" award for any given injury.
Click to expand...


As I said. Planigale was talking about our system in the UK; now s/he is making out s/he was talking about Italy all along. It was s/he who brought up civil law.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
What is the body count and collateral damage attributable to Guede?
If you were in charge of the system would you require him to tell you exactly where he was when Amanda stabbed Meredith, before you signed his release forms?
Click to expand...

They are not release papers. It is merely 36 hours day release for good behaviour.
 
Vixen said:
I probably knew Italian law differed from ours long before you.
Click to expand...
No, you probably didn't.

Vixen said:
Your attempt to portray me as an ignoramus, highlights your own gaps of knowledge as it's clear you have only just got your info from google. On the other hand, I am conversant.
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

Vixen said:
FWIW I have no legal qualifications whatsoever.
Click to expand...

We knew that already.
 
Vixen said:
I probably knew Italian law differed from ours long before you. I have had to explain the difference a few times. There was a case in France long before the Kercher case which had a tedious rigmarole of investigating judges.

Your attempt to portray me as an ignoramus, highlights your own gaps of knowledge as it's clear you have only just got your info from google. On the other hand, I am conversant.

FWIW I have no legal qualifications whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Can i suggest you get info from google rather than making stuff up! Knowledge is good, it does not matter whether from a text book, lecture or the internet.
 
Vixen said:
They are not release papers. It is merely 36 hours day release for good behaviour.
Click to expand...
I see from a distance that the same pattern continues.
1. Science proved Knox was innocent from day one.
2. The victim's family are captured by the warm embrace of police and prosecutors.
3. They combine for decades to deny science in a manner which would be unacceptable and fatal in all other real world activities.
4. There is no abject apology from any party ever for the suffering they caused the kidnapped parties or their families.
5. No one drives for this here on this forum or anywhere, ever.
6. I don't understand you lot in the northerrn hemisphere, except it works exactly the same down under.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom