Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mike1711]

This is where a good barrister comes in, with good rhetoric, debating and oratorial skills.

Jurists were impressed by how Scheck spun the glove fact : (it's too small!)

Bongiorno gets by with theatrics, rather than any accurate representation of the facts.

To sum: you have the mundane "facts" which the courts find. Then comes the art of interpretation of those facts. Judge Massapei (_sp?) fell at this fence in the Pistorius case.

Of course criminals are stealthy. They'll rarely come to court and tell the truth. They lie about their alibi, they cover up certain facts, they're manipulative, spin sob stories, cry, blame another...why, sounds a bit like...er....

Your response answers nothing.

I will try again.

Bad court decisions and incorrect judicial truths are more frequent than is commonly known. For you to continually cling to judicial truths as though they are true makes you either naive or manipulative. Maybe both. For this argument it doesn't matter at all how or why they arise...just that they do.

In your second paragraph you describe a liar and then somehow interpret this is stealth. ...perhaps you need to google the meaning of stealth.

With respect, your misinterpretation and manipulation of facts is the reason why you're called up on this thread so often.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

This is where a good barrister comes in, with good rhetoric, debating and oratorial skills.

Jurists were impressed by how Scheck spun the glove fact : (it's too small!

I wonder how many of these solicitors who, nine times out of ten, know less about the law than you do also don't know the difference between a jurist and a juror.

 

[Mike1711]

I wonder how many of these solicitors who, nine times out of ten, know less about the law than you do also don't know the difference between a jurist and a juror.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It is settled. It is an immutable fact that poor Bridget was convicted of being a witch.

I agree it is a fact that Bridget was convicted of being a witch.

Answer this for me:

1) The official Court of Oyer and Terminer affirmed that that Bridget Bishop was a witch. This was a fact found by the official court. A judicial truth. She was later tried, convicted, and executed.

2) It follows from (1) above, that Bridget Bishop was indeed a witch. This is a fact settled, and it doesn't become open debate to all-comers. This fact remains, no matter how controversial. [True/False]

These are the exact words you used in this post:

You do not understand how law works. It's not like ice-skating, where a series of judges hold up their marks.

A fact found, is a fact settled. It doesn't become open to debate to all-comers. It's like Mike's imaginary referee. If he ajudges a goal, penalty or foul, then the 'fact' remains, no matter how controversial.

I am looking for clarification on your position Vixen. It is a true/false question. Please refrain from a diatribe on the history of witchcraft in the 17th century.

 

[Bill Williams]

ISF is supposed to be logical and clinical, it's advertised as a skeptics site. Vixen is illogical and unclinical - simply asserting things, ignoring the proof that debunks her assertions, then she moves on.

As long as this issue dominates the forum, this thread should be shut. People are saying that there are outstanding issues - the ECHR being perhaps one. The satellite prosecutions that Mignini brought against everyone who looked at him sideways - Curt Knox, Edda Mellas, Andrew Gumbel, Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox - are all disappearing as Italy seems to simply want all of this to go away.

Italy has mainly succeeded in making this go away by exonerating RS and AK on the main charges well more than a year ago. Indeed by the stats that ISF keeps, this thread has lost about 92% of it's viewers (lurking activity) and the same amount of posts. If Vixen had not flooded the thread since April 2105, the posts would have dropped 96% or more.

So until ECHR...................? What? Maybe Vixen can try some more strawman poems. At least she's talented that way (although I have a suspicion someone is ghostwriting for her!)

And just in the last day, NotEvenWrong has shown that you have no idea where "judicial truths" fit into the ontic-truth department.

Mike1711 has caught you not knowing the difference between a jurist and a juror, even though you brag that your judicial musings are correct 9 times out of ten.

And don't get me going on the number of times you have Marasca/Bruno expressing views on "judicial facts" when ISC panels in Italy do no such thing (they summarize what lower courts said were judicially true, and then rule on whether or not the lower court should have convicted based on those findings), or that you have them (Italian judges from Italy's top court) rendering verdicts applicable only to Scotland!

None of this is made up. All of this appears in your posts.

 

[Vixen]

I wonder how many of these solicitors who, nine times out of ten, know less about the law than you do also don't know the difference between a jurist and a juror.

Heh, fair comment.

 

[Vixen]

I agree it is a fact that Bridget was convicted of being a witch.

Answer this for me:

1) The official Court of Oyer and Terminer affirmed that that Bridget Bishop was a witch. This was a fact found by the official court. A judicial truth. She was later tried, convicted, and executed.

2) It follows from (1) above, that Bridget Bishop was indeed a witch. This is a fact settled, and it doesn't become open debate to all-comers. This fact remains, no matter how controversial. [True/False]

These are the exact words you used in this post:



I am looking for clarification on your position Vixen. It is a true/false question. Please refrain from a diatribe on the history of witchcraft in the 17th century.

I have four friends who are declared Wiccans, one of whom believes she has a guardian angel. Two wear pentagrams around their neck. One has faith-related-tattoos. If we had witchcraft laws today, would the court correctly or incorrectly find them to be witches?

 

[Mike1711]

And just in the last day, NotEvenWrong has shown that you have no idea where "judicial truths" fit into the ontic-truth department.

Mike1711 has caught you not knowing the difference between a jurist and a juror, even though you brag that your judicial musings are correct 9 times out of ten.

And don't get me going on the number of times you have Marasca/Bruno expressing views on "judicial facts" when ISC panels in Italy do no such thing (they summarize what lower courts said were judicially true, and then rule on whether or not the lower court should have convicted based on those findings), or that you have them (Italian judges from Italy's top court) rendering verdicts applicable only to Scotland!

None of this is made up. All of this appears in your posts.

Everything you say here is 100% correct, Bill but for the fact that it was Sergei Walankov who spotted the Vixen Juror/jurist blunder.

 

[Vixen]

And just in the last day, NotEvenWrong has shown that you have no idea where "judicial truths" fit into the ontic-truth department.

Mike1711 has caught you not knowing the difference between a jurist and a juror, even though you brag that your judicial musings are correct 9 times out of ten.

And don't get me going on the number of times you have Marasca/Bruno expressing views on "judicial facts" when ISC panels in Italy do no such thing (they summarize what lower courts said were judicially true, and then rule on whether or not the lower court should have convicted based on those findings), or that you have them (Italian judges from Italy's top court) rendering verdicts applicable only to Scotland!

None of this is made up. All of this appears in your posts.

If a leading Bath Uni historian in Italian law and politics says article 230. para II, is equivalent to the Scottish law, 'not proven', whom do I believe,a fervent PIP desperate to spin an 'innocent' verdict, or an objective, learned senior professor?

 

[Mike1711]

Delete

 

[Mike1711]

I have four friends who are declared Wiccans, one of whom believes she has a guardian angel. Two wear pentagrams around their neck. One has faith-related-tattoos. If we had witchcraft laws today, would the court correctly or incorrectly find them to be witches?

Answer the question, Vixen. NotEvenWrong posed a true/false question and anecdotal stories by you get you nowhere.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I have four friends who are declared Wiccans, one of whom believes she has a guardian angel. Two wear pentagrams around their neck. One has faith-related-tattoos. If we had witchcraft laws today, would the court correctly or incorrectly find them to be witches?

I don't know. It depends heavily on whether or not Mignini and the Perugian law enforcement are put on the case, and whether or not you and other PGP are part of the jury.

Could you answer my question now please? It is a true/false. No need to avoid the question by misdirection.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Answer the question, Vixen. NotEvenWrong posed a true/false question and anecdotal stories by you get you nowhere.

 

[Vixen]

Answer the question, Vixen. NotEvenWrong posed a true/false question and anecdotal stories by you get you nowhere.

Wiccans believe they have supernatural powers and although they claim to be 'white witches', one told me she knows how to put a 'hex' on someone.

You and NEW are discriminating against people on the grounds of their religious belief by saying witches have no magical powers at all, and therefore it cannot be a judicial truth that any of the Salem witches were really witches.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Wiccans believe they have supernatural powers and although they claim to be 'white witches', one told me she knows how to put a 'hex' on someone.

You and NEW are discriminating against people on the grounds of their religious belief by saying witches have no magical powers at all, and therefore it cannot be a judicial truth that any of the Salem witches were really witches.

Vixen,
It would be fantastic if you avoided personal attacks by saying Mike and I are discriminating against people based on their religious beliefs, when anyone who isn't a super lunatic would immediate realize we are not.

We are, in fact, asking you the following:

Answer this for me:

1) The official Court of Oyer and Terminer affirmed that that Bridget Bishop was a witch. This was a fact found by the official court. A judicial truth. She was later tried, convicted, and executed.

2) It follows from (1) above, that Bridget Bishop was indeed a witch. This is a fact settled, and it doesn't become open debate to all-comers. This fact remains, no matter how controversial. [True/False]

Reposted from here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11357419#post11357419

Furthermore,

Question dodging:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging

Why are you avoiding giving a direct response? Are you embarrassed? Does it reflect on a lack of reasoning ability? Are you intentionally lying and trying to misrepresent things because you have an agenda? Why are you engaging in uncivil personal attacks on Mike and I by accusing us of discrimination?

 

[Bill Williams]

If a leading Bath Uni historian in Italian law and politics says article 230. para II, is equivalent to the Scottish law, 'not proven', whom do I believe,a fervent PIP desperate to spin an 'innocent' verdict, or an objective, learned senior professor?

We know what you believe.

What we do not know is what this "Bath Uni Historian in Italian law," believes. You have provided no link to anything that would cause anyone - me or independent lurker to this thread - to believe you.

Once again, this is your assertion. Assert away. What you've not done is pointed to anything authoritative.

On the other side, we "fervent PIP desperate to spin an 'innocent' verdict," have pointed YOU to Boninsegna's motivations report where a practising Italian judge has stated that it is a judicial fact that AK and RS were exonerated.

My bet is that if/when you do provide a link, it will say no such thing.

But you will continue as if you've proven something. Good for you.

 

[Mike1711]

Wiccans believe they have supernatural powers and although they claim to be 'white witches', one told me she knows how to put a 'hex' on someone.

You and NEW are discriminating against people on the grounds of their religious belief by saying witches have no magical powers at all, and therefore it cannot be a judicial truth that any of the Salem witches were really witches.

No, I'm not saying anything about witches.

Now answer the question.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I'm not saying anything about witches.

Now answer the question.

Classic Vixen.

She avoids answering the question about the judicial truth of the Salem Witch trials, but doing the Tennessee two-step into another issue - the acceptance of Wicca in the modern day.

Head Couples out to your right
Face your opposite and Box the gnat
Box right back
Do si do (your opposite)
Swing ( your opposite)
Face your partner and Box the Gnat
Box right back.
Do si do (your partner)
Swing (your partner)
Side couples out to your right
Heads to heads and sides to sides​

If Vixen ever dealt with an issue put to her, my face would fall off.

 

[whoanellie]

And just in the last day, NotEvenWrong has shown that you have no idea where "judicial truths" fit into the ontic-truth department.

Mike1711 has caught you not knowing the difference between a jurist and a juror, even though you brag that your judicial musings are correct 9 times out of ten.

And don't get me going on the number of times you have Marasca/Bruno expressing views on "judicial facts" when ISC panels in Italy do no such thing (they summarize what lower courts said were judicially true, and then rule on whether or not the lower court should have convicted based on those findings), or that you have them (Italian judges from Italy's top court) rendering verdicts applicable only to Scotland!

None of this is made up. All of this appears in your posts.

If my memory serves me correctly, Barry Scheck had nothing to do with the glove in the OJ trial. It wasn't Scheck who said "if it doesn't fit you must acquit."
Add that to your list.

 

[Pacal]

Wiccans believe they have supernatural powers and although they claim to be 'white witches', one told me she knows how to put a 'hex' on someone.

You and NEW are discriminating against people on the grounds of their religious belief by saying witches have no magical powers at all, and therefore it cannot be a judicial truth that any of the Salem witches were really witches.

It depends on what you mean by "Witch". If you mean practitioners of what is called "folk magic", then there were lots of "Witches" in Salem. It was from our point of view a very superstitious time and belief in hexes, sympathetic magic, curses existed in all sections of society. But I would hardly call such beliefs a religion or anything much like modern Wicca.

What the Judges of the Salem Witch trials had in mind when they accused people of being Witches was not so much the practice of "folk magic" but of them being members of a counter church - the church of Satan. Basically in this mythos Witches were worshippers of Satan, members of counter church seeking to destroy Christianity and along with this belief came the idea of a pact with the Devil, the Witches Sabbat and of course sex with the Devil. Witches were members of a vast Satanic underground that sought to undermine Christianity etc.

What was the evidence of such a Satanic cult? Well basically nothing. Through torture, coercion and leading questions the Witch hunters built up the myth of the Satanic Church and Diabolic religion. The Salem Witch Hunters were heirs to this tradition and the results were tragic.

The Witch, Satanic religion basically never existed and was concoction of the Witch hunters devised from their fevered minds. Modern Wicca is indeed quite modern, based on surviving practices of "folk magic" and a whitewashed version of the diabolic religion conjured up by the Witch hunters.

As for any of the accused Witches judicially murdered at Salem. It is unlikely that any of them were Witches in the sense of being practitioners of a Witch religion. It is of course possible that some may have practised "folk magic". The trials themselves were farces even by late 17th century standards. The "evidence" against the witnesses a joke and the confessions basically worthless. I note that the authorities in Boston put a stop to the procedures and then ordered the remaining suspects freed. Further the entire episode became very quickly an embarrassing episode in memory. Those found guilty and executed were eventually exonerated, a bit late.

So it is very doubtful that any of the people executed in Salem was in fact a Witch at all.