Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[toto]

You have been told before, wikipedia has been edited incorrectly.

i wonder what you can do about that?

 

[Methos]

The same reaction they had to, 'The glove doesn't fit!'

Nobody takes Candace Dempsey seriously, a two-bit hack who tried to cash in with a slimline paperback of about 100 pages in large print and small size.
The type of hack who gives hacks a bad name.

 

[Vixen]

The purpose of the quotation was mainly to ask: why the prosecution would not already have had access to this footage?

It is not relevant. If you want to present evidence to a court of law, protocol and due process - and practice directions - decree that all parties have a right to see all evidence you will be introducing.

Whether they already have knowledge of the content is neither here nor there.

It is simple court etiquette, and I am surprised (or maybe not) Vecchiotti & Conti planned to produce a DVD ('independent witnesses' hired by the court, remember) for defence eyes only.

Disgraceful, unprofessional, contemptible behaviour and contemptuous of the court. As legal medics they ought to know that their first duty is to the court.

 

[Vixen]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1247&pictureid=11137[/qimg]

OK, fair enough, I stand corrected. I sent a load of books off to a charity shop a few months back, and that was one of them.

I seem to remember it was very lightweight, or perhaps I am confusing it with Barbara Nadeau's book.

 

[Vixen]

i wonder what you can do about that?

The entire wiki on the case has been constantly tampered with by the PR-brigade, which is why 'www.themurderofmeredithkercher' was set up.

I would take most of the stuff on the wiki page with a pinch of salt. You have no way of knowing what is factual and what a Friend of Amanda Knox spin.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is not relevant. If you want to present evidence to a court of law, protocol and due process - and practice directions - decree that all parties have a right to see all evidence you will be introducing.

Whether they already have knowledge of the content is neither here nor there.

It is simple court etiquette, and I am surprised (or maybe not) Vecchiotti & Conti planned to produce a DVD ('independent witnesses' hired by the court, remember) for defence eyes only.

Disgraceful, unprofessional, contemptible behaviour and contemptuous of the court. As legal medics they ought to know that their first duty is to the court.

Please check again the very citation YOU provided. Far from disgraceful concerning C&V, it seems all C&V were doing was passing on evidence which the prosecution always had, but had failed to make full disclosure to the other side.

Whether they already have knowledge of the content is neither here nor there.​

Seriously? They gave a DVD to the defence, for "defence eyes only", and even you don't care that other eyes have seen it? Are you claiming that Stefanoni's team took the footage and then didn't bother to look at it - and assess how the prosecution might or might not use it?

Of all the confirmationed biased things that have been put into this thread, I think this is the most naked of all. You actually think it is all right to withhold exonerating evidence from the defence - even though under Italian law it is the prosecution's duty to present exonerating evidence.

And when they don't, you think it is all right for the prosecution to charge C&V with a crime for letting the defence in on what will exonerate their client.

Right. The goal here is to convict the pair regardless.

Remember - this whole thread started with you claiming C&V should have been charged with a crime. Then you provided a cite from Candace Dempsey which told the WHOLE story.

 

[Bill Williams]

The same reaction they had to, 'The glove doesn't fit!'

Nobody takes Candace Dempsey seriously, a two-bit hack who tried to cash in with a slimline paperback of about 100 pages in large print and small size.


The type of hack who gives hacks a bad name.

LOL! Yet you took her seriously enough, that you used one of her pieces in reference to the DVD that C&V passed to the defence.

Do you ever track your train of thought?

 

[Vixen]

Please check again the very citation YOU provided. Far from disgraceful concerning C&V, it seems all C&V were doing was passing on evidence which the prosecution always had, but had failed to make full disclosure to the other side.

Whether they already have knowledge of the content is neither here nor there.​

Seriously? They gave a DVD to the defence, for "defence eyes only", and even you don't care that other eyes have seen it? Are you claiming that Stefanoni's team took the footage and then didn't bother to look at it - and assess how the prosecution might or might not use it?

Of all the confirmationed biased things that have been put into this thread, I think this is the most naked of all. You actually think it is all right to withhold exonerating evidence from the defence - even though under Italian law it is the prosecution's duty to present exonerating evidence.

And when they don't, you think it is all right for the prosecution to charge C&V with a crime for letting the defence in on what will exonerate their client.

Right. The goal here is to convict the pair regardless.

Remember - this whole thread started with you claiming C&V should have been charged with a crime. Then you provided a cite from Candace Dempsey which told the WHOLE story.

What? The footage was taken for the defence forensic experts who witnessed the scene from a van outside by live cctv camera. This was in lieu of their right to witness the forensic evidence-gathering in person, for obvious reasons.


There is no way the prosecution tampered with this right. The defence did not lodge a complaint they had been barred from witnessing the forensics.

 

[Vixen]

LOL! Yet you took her seriously enough, that you used one of her pieces in reference to the DVD that C&V passed to the defence.

Do you ever track your train of thought?

That was just ONE of the sources. It was reported in the Italian press, from whence CD got it.

 

[Bill Williams]

The entire wiki on the case has been constantly tampered with by the PR-brigade, which is why 'www.themurderofmeredithkercher' was set up.

I would take most of the stuff on the wiki page with a pinch of salt. You have no way of knowing what is factual and what a Friend of Amanda Knox spin.

You should read the dozens of Wikipedia talk-pages which chronicle the page in question.

In a sense, the fake-wiki is what the guilters back then wanted - unedittable by anyone other than another guilter.

Jimbo Wales had to intercede because the second-tier of moderator back in 2011 was itself violating Wikipedia's rules surrounding Neutral Point of View, and verifiability. If someone, for instance, cited the NYTimes or Rolling Stone as saying something - that second-tier would nuke it simply on the basis that it had a point of view.

The point being, as long as the edit itself represented a NPOV in simply citing the NYTimes without comment, then that is fair game.

Jimbo Wales interceded and discovered that the whole article was being held to a guilter slant, regardless of the Wiki-rules.

This is all well documented if you would simply take the time to read the talk pages which covered it.

The fake-wiki ended up being what those guilters wanted - a page which users could not edit with reputatble, verifiable sources.

Indeed, despite Candace Dempsey writing that the DVD-issue from C&V was a result of Mignini feeling his case was falling apart, and he started threatening everyone in sight with legal action - the only take-away that the fake-wiki cites is, "C&V broke the law by giving the DVD to the defence".

Besides, as noted, the fake-wiki is not a wiki at all. It is the distilled biases of the guilter people, starting with Edward McCall (who seems to have disappeared) and now under the clutches of God himself, Ergon.

It is not open to be editted under ANY standards, unless someone has something guilt-sounding to say. That's why Wikipedia itself had to be cleaned up 5 years ago (under the scrutiny of the founder!!) and it is why the fake-wiki is simply a biased webpage.

Not a wiki at all.

 

[Vixen]

No, your translation is gibberish.

Not mine, Babylon, which seems a notch up from google translate.

'Vecchiotti' seems to translate to 'outdated'. If so, how very apposite.

 

[Vixen]

You should read the dozens of Wikipedia talk-pages which chronicle the page in question.

In a sense, the fake-wiki is what the guilters back then wanted - unedittable by anyone other than another guilter.

Jimbo Wales had to intercede because the second-tier of moderator back in 2011 was itself violating Wikipedia's rules surrounding Neutral Point of View, and verifiability. If someone, for instance, cited the NYTimes or Rolling Stone as saying something - that second-tier would nuke it simply on the basis that it had a point of view.

The point being, as long as the edit itself represented a NPOV in simply citing the NYTimes without comment, then that is fair game.

Jimbo Wales interceded and discovered that the whole article was being held to a guilter slant, regardless of the Wiki-rules.

This is all well documented if you would simply take the time to read the talk pages which covered it.

The fake-wiki ended up being what those guilters wanted - a page which users could not edit with reputatble, verifiable sources.

Indeed, despite Candace Dempsey writing that the DVD-issue from C&V was a result of Mignini feeling his case was falling apart, and he started threatening everyone in sight with legal action - the only take-away that the fake-wiki cites is, "C&V broke the law by giving the DVD to the defence".

Besides, as noted, the fake-wiki is not a wiki at all. It is the distilled biases of the guilter people, starting with Edward McCall (who seems to have disappeared) and now under the clutches of God himself, Ergon.

It is not open to be editted under ANY standards, unless someone has something guilt-sounding to say. That's why Wikipedia itself had to be cleaned up 5 years ago (under the scrutiny of the founder!!) and it is why the fake-wiki is simply a biased webpage.

Not a wiki at all.

The Jimmy Wales wiki was been constantly interfered with by the same people who write on 'AmandaKnox' case webpage that, 'Rudy Guede was an unemployed criminal, drug dealer and burglar'.

None of this is factual, it is pure agitprop.

 

[bagels]

The Jimmy Wales wiki was been constantly interfered with by the same people who write on 'AmandaKnox' case webpage that, 'Rudy Guede was an unemployed criminal, drug dealer and burglar'.

None of this is factual, it is pure agitprop.

Yes it's technically true that Rudy Guede, who was caught by police holding property that didn't belong to him from a building he coincidentally was simultaneously trespassing in, while also holding significant stolen property from another burglary, was not actually convicted of burglary.

This PR spin is really clouding the objectivity of the article.

If only it could be erased, Amanda's noise ticket added, and the article topped off with speculation that the mafia influenced the acquittal. Then people would really get a fair view of the case.

If it makes you feel better, the only people in the world that are convinced Amanda Knox did it can tell just by looking at her eyes in a photograph, so you don't need to worry about some boring article anyway.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Jimmy Wales wiki was been constantly interfered with by the same people who write on 'AmandaKnox' case webpage that, 'Rudy Guede was an unemployed criminal, drug dealer and burglar'.

None of this is factual, it is pure agitprop.

Loving the attempt to minimise wikipedia.com (one of the world's largest and most used web domains, used as a point of reference by major media organisations throughout the world) by calling it "The Jimmy Wales wiki" - at the same time clearly trying to accord it similar credibility as the POS pro-guilt "wiki".

Lovely stuff! If only Baghdad Bob were still alive!

 

[whoanellie]

Thus, Grinder was advocating for at least the potential that there was a legal difference based upon some sources. This generated some lively discussion which I hope was informative.

1)Grinder believed that there was a difference between a paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 acquital
2)He repeatedly said that he did not know or was unsure whether there was a "legal" difference. Whether there was any difference in legal consequence. That is, until he consulted with a source in Italy who told him there was no legal difference.
3)I therefore concluded that the difference Grinder believed did exist was not a legal difference.
4)I think it safe to say that Grinder's agnosticism as to whether there was a legal difference did not generate a lively discussion, it was his strongly held belief that there was a non-legal difference.

 

[Methos]

Loving the attempt to minimise wikipedia.com (one of the world's largest and most used web domains, used as a point of reference by major media organisations throughout the world) by calling it "The Jimmy Wales wiki" - at the same time clearly trying to accord it similar credibility as the POS pro-guilt "wiki".

Lovely stuff! If only Baghdad Bob were still alive!

According to Wikipedia Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf is still alive.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not mine, Babylon, which seems a notch up from google translate.

'Vecchiotti' seems to translate to 'outdated'. If so, how very apposite.

Your attempts to repurpose Vecchiotti's court testimony related to contamination are as laughable as they are incorrect. One should either learn Italian or, at the very least, learn how to interpret machine translations (by cross-referencing against different machine algorithms, by looking at the exact original words, and by looking at the context of the original words) before trying to rewrite history.

For the record, Vecchiotti is very clearly stating in her testimony that six days would be sufficient to prevent contamination, provided that other processes and procedures are followed properly. That is what Vecchiotti clearly means when she says "ammesso che è andato così", which means "providing that everything else went well". And while there's obviously a form-of-wording matter to overcome between the two languages, context and meaning clearly show that Vecchiotti was stating that six days, in and of themselves, would not guarantee an impossibility of contamination - "everything else" would also have to go well.

Hilarious.

 

[whoanellie]

English translation is from The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia, (C) 2014.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. {1}If the criminal act did not occur,
{2}the accused did not commit it,
{3}the act is not deemed an offence by law or
{4}it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason,
the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal,
mentioning the cause {that is, the specification} in the operative part of the judgment.

2.The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that {1}the criminal act occurred,
{2}the accused committed it,
{3}the act is deemed an offence by law,
{4}the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity.

Note that 4 of the 5 specifications are found in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, with the 5th found in 530.3. Sorry if my leaving out Article 530.3 as a source of a specification in an earlier post caused any confusion. There is, however, some conceptual overlap in Specification 4 of Article 530.1 and both Specification 4 of 530.2 and Specification 5 of 530.3.

Thank you for providing this information.

The plain meaning difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 is clear to me . First there is the part in paragraph 2 that I've highlighted. Second that the negation in specifications 1 through 3 of paragraph 1 are not present in paragraph 2. The plain meaning 1{2} is that the defendant is innocent. The plain meaning of 2{2} is that the defendant may have commited the act but there is insufficient evidence to safely convict. In both cases, of course, the defendant is acquitted and free to go.

Here is my question, if you were on trial for a crime in Italy and you were acquitted (hopefully correctly) would you rather the motivation report mention 1{2} or 2{2} as the cause?

 

[Numbers]

1)Grinder believed that there was a difference between a paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 acquital
2)He repeatedly said that he did not know or was unsure whether there was a "legal" difference. Whether there was any difference in legal consequence.
3)I therefore concluded that the difference Grinder believed did exist was not a legal difference.
4)I think it safe to say that Grinder's agnosticism as to whether there was a legal difference did not generate a lively discussion, it wsa his strongly held belief that there was a non-legal difference.

Thanks for your opinion.

However, it is not supported by Grinder's own posts where he resolved his "agnositicism" in stating that he had consulted an Italian lawyer and found that there was no legal difference, only a difference in perception.

Initially, Grinder had suggested in a post that there may be a legal difference, but that was secondary to his issue that there was a difference in perception.

I certainly never disagreed with him that some persons in Italy or elsewhere perceived CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2 as somehow different in legal effect. However, this is a false perception - there is no difference in legal consequences under either Italian civil or criminal law between acquittals under these paragraphs.

The discussion, which I participated in, about whether or not there was a legal difference certainly existed and may be found in thread Continuation 21. Whether this discussion was or was not "lively" is, of course, a subjective judgment. Some may have found it overly long and an indication that Grinder should have checked with an Italian lawyer or other sources he trusted and that were reliable earlier than he did. The sources he initially used were not reliable.

 

[LondonJohn]

1)Grinder believed that there was a difference between a paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 acquital
2)He repeatedly said that he did not know or was unsure whether there was a "legal" difference. Whether there was any difference in legal consequence.
3)I therefore concluded that the difference Grinder believed did exist was not a legal difference.
4)I think it safe to say that Grinder's agnosticism as to whether there was a legal difference did not generate a lively discussion, it wsa his strongly held belief that there was a non-legal difference.

The near-certain genesis of the confusion on this matter is that the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure was changed in order to reflect the changes in the Italian constitution and legislation. But instead of doing a proper rewrite of the old sections of the code, a clumsy and inappropriate series of amendments took place to "shoehorn" the new constitutional and legislative changes into the existing code.

Clearly what should have happened is that 530 should have been torn up and rewritten along the lines of:

530 The judge shall announce acquittal if:
530.1
{1}the criminal act did not occur,
{2}there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime,
{3}the crime is not deemed an offence by law or
{4}the crime has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished

The clumsy amendment of 530 means that, in reality, the sections of 530 are more-or-less meaningless in the context of what constitutes an acquittal (or conviction) under the Italian Constitution and Italian law. And it cannot be stated clearly enough: if someone were charged with a crime and the prosecution presented not one iota of evidence of guilt, the acquittal would fall under 530.2, not 530.1.

There is only one way to get acquitted in Italy if you are a defendant of sound mind: if the court is not presented of proof BARD that you committed the criminal act with which you were charged (which also encapsulates the scenario where the court deems that no crime was committed). There are not "grades" of acquittal.