The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Numbers]

Rubbish. Anybody is entitled to take on the services of a lawyer. 1. To claim I said otherwise is ridiculous. 2. Let's face it, Zellner has only taken on Steven Avery because it is high profile. This is undeniable. There was a banner headline I saw that she had earned $2m, 'and it's only February'. 3. Please don't insult us all by claiming this is pro bono for a poor underprivileged mite. I saw the Netflix film and despite the heavy bias towards the defence (being a defence-backed film) it was obvious he was fairly convicted, with a fair trial.

The Amanda Knox Netflix film, was similarly misleading to viewers, and 4. the claim she is exonerated is a false one.

5. If Windsor Law School advertised Amanda as legally exonerated, sorry, they are deliberately misleading their students. She is fairly convicted of criminal Calunnia and her three year's sentence for this is not 'wrongful imprisonment', nor the one year in remand (cf the Florence verdict Feb 2017 dismissing Raff's claim for compo, saying his behaviour was gross misconduct and he brought his remand on himself).

Do you understand the argument, now?

Please stop twisting my words or your own previous statements.

1. Citation, please; I have not stated that.
2. Citation, please. Are these two sentences linked? Are you implying that Avery paid her $2 million. That seems not credible. And lawyers are entitled to obtain legitimate income from legal work. Are you claiming that her income, whatever it is or was, is derived unethically, immorally, or illegally? Do you have evidence from any official source, such as a state bar association or any agency empowered to discipline lawyers showing that Zellner has been accused of any unethical, immoral, or illegal act relating to her legal services? What possible connection is there to the Knox - Sollecito case? Will you please specify the connection in detail, or admit that you are introducing these topics because your arguments lack credibility and don't support your position?
3. Are you stating Zellner's services to Avery are not provided pro bono? I have not claimed that they were. Avery, with Zellner as his attorney, is in the process of seeking post-conviction relief. He, and any other convicted person, is entitled under US law to seek such relief, in accordance with law, whether or not an anonymous internet poster believes him to be guilty.
4. It's your opinion that Knox was not exonerated. The opinion of others, such as the groups against wrongful convictions who invite her, are contrary. And they count more in my opinion than the opinion of an anonymous internet poster unsupported by any credible argument and certainly none with any legal merit.
5. Knox has been exonerated on the murder/rape charge. Windsor DWC and its law school apparently understand that while you, an anonymous internet poster with no credible arguments apparently choose not to agree to their opinion, and they are lawyers and law students. One of your prior posts claimed the beginning law students there only 18 years of age, showing you don't know the law school requirement in Canada - as in the US, those requirements include completion of an undergraduate college degree. Your statements just generate a huge laugh.
6. I understand your argument and find it laughably inadequate and not credible. I disagree with it.

 

[TruthCalls]

'Not guilty' due to insufficent evidence, does not mean exonerated. As Numbers definition points out, it has to involve an element of being found factually innocent.

Marasca has made it clear the kids remain 'highly suspicious' and that Amanda was at the scene of the crime, did cover up for Rudy and did wash off the blood of the victim (bearing in mind blood dries within half an hour). Think hard, Toto, it does not point to 'exoneration'.

Anyway I have tow on my distaff.

No, Numbers definition does not mean one has to be proven factually innocent. If someone has been sitting on death row for murder and DNA finally proves someone else, you will likely be acquitted and released from prison. However, without an iron clad alibi you would be no more "factually innocent" than Amanda. Yet I can assure you there would be no doubt you will be described as being innocent and of being exonerated.

BTW, I see you're STILL citing those three little PGP "facts" without the ability to cite one iota of evidence in support of any of them. Given the sheer number of posts you make on a daily basis, clearly you have time to craft a response that will cite clear, concise evidence as documented by the courts that can support any of these three claims. So then why is it, Vixen, that you NEVER do? You ask me why Raffaele's kitchen knife wasn't involved in the crime or why the Luminol traces weren't made with Meredith's blood and I'll list documented court evidence, expert witness testimony and numerous research documents to back my position. I won't ever shy from explaining to someone why I consider something to be a fact and provide the evidence to back it up. And if I can't do that then I will be honest enough to admit it is merely a theory, conjecture, etc. There can be only one reason why you would write hundreds of posts evading requests to provide evidence and that is BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

"...bearing in mind blood dries within half an hour" - Um, care to point out how that has any bearing on anything?

 

[Numbers]

1. Your assumptions fall at the first hurdle, as I am not pro-death penalty (except for treason, terrorism and aggravated murder [for example, serial killers and child killers]). I don't agree with life without parole as I think people do reform over the years and should be given at least a parole hearing, after, say, nine years, as in the UK. I am all for prison reform. Conditions are brutal and only help serve recidivism. Norway's treatment of Anders Brevik, is a brave one, given the enormity of his crimes.

3. Innocence fraud IMV is where a person who would otherwise have confessed, or served their time cooperatively, are encouraged to pretend they are innocent. This can be by family (who do not want the shame) and egregiously, lawyers who can see a lot of money in it for themselves, given the size of compensation should they be successful. The fraud goes beyond normal defence tactics, such as picking holes in police tactics, trying to find flaws in the forensic evidence (cf OJ Simpson and his glove) claiming due process was not followed, etc. 4. It extends to demanding the evidence must be 100% certain and forcing the police and the courts to unreasonably jump through hoops proving, for example, the DNA obtained did not come from an alleged 'rogue policeman, who broke into a phial already in storage for a previous crime', or 'the police planted evidence because they they were snobs and thought the family were trash'.
5. A whole load of taxpayers money is spent on futile exercises, which should have been dealt with at trial level. It is what a trial is for. One reason this industry flourishes is because sentencing in the USA is so harsh, it becomes 'worth it' as the convicted person has nothing to lose, except 'life without parole', and there is a whole underclass who are in jail for the 'three strikes' rule and serving life for crimes that normally would attract a sentence of no more than two years, if that.

The US penal system encourages innocence fraud because of (a) its harsh, almost inhumane penitentiary system, and (b) the huge levels of compensation that can be claimed if you can get your conviction thrown out.

Now, what applies in the USA, does not apply in Italy. Italy has two automatic appeals, 50% of which are successful. There is parole (Rudy is out 100% next year - he is out on parole now).

Thus the FOA alarm over the fair trial of Amanda and Raff is misguided, misconceived and way over the top in terms of reasonableness.

Thanks for this post, Vixen, which helps explain your rationale for your repeated statements with the term, which you may have introduced to the discussion in the Knox - Sollecito thread at Continuation 18, "innocence fraud".

1. Note that I nowhere claimed that you (Vixen) supported the death penalty. This statement is an example of your twisting words. I merely reported that I found the term "innocence fraud" online used by one or more groups opposing others who opposed the death penalty in the US.

2. I found no legal definition and no general definition for "innocence fraud" and thus its meaning must be made clear in any attempt to communicate effectively. I note that Bill Williams in his posts responding to the posts of Vixen first using the term requested the meaning, which was not given by Vixen.

3. Thanks for this statement, Vixen. It defines "innocence fraud" to some degree. It does not explain fully whether "innocence fraud" is meant to be a crime ("fraud" has a legal definition, at least in the US) or, as stated or implied in Vixen's post #1426 in Continuation 18, it is the "ultimate unethical and immoral act" of "pretending a criminal is innocent".

At any rate, as defined by Vixen in the quoted post, "innocence fraud" is any case where "a person who would otherwise have confessed, or served their time cooperatively, are encouraged to pretend they are innocent".

Thus, any person accused of a crime who pleads not guilty rather than confessing would be committing "innocence fraud", as would that person's lawyer. Questioning the methods or results of the police and prosecution is apparently not to be allowed, if it is done, it is "innocence fraud". There apparently is no presumption of innocence in Vixen's use of the term, and no discovery, equality of arms, or the state providing adequate facilities for the defense to examine the evidence (the first term is US law, the latter two ECHR case law).

4. Vixen adds that convictions do not need to based on 100% certain evidence. I interpret this paragraph in the quoted post as indicating that the state is not required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain or maintain a conviction. Apparently, the state would not need to establish that evidence followed chain-of-possession and was free of contamination or other anomalies.

5. Apparently, any attempt at post-conviction relief is "innocence fraud".

Well, this was a most useful and enlightening post, Vixen, and I very much appreciate your spelling out what you mean by "innocence fraud".

Those reading it and comparing the views in the quoted post to the current system of justice, such as envisioned by the US Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights, with laws enacted by legislatures and interpretations by the courts, may be given some material for thought. These differences in views may suggest why discussions on the Knox - Sollecito case or the appropriate way a justice system should function for any specific case or in general do not come to any conclusion.

 

[Bill Williams]

2. I found no legal definition and no general definition for "innocence fraud" and thus its meaning must be made clear in any attempt to communicate effectively. I note that Bill Williams in his posts responding to the posts of Vixen first using the term requested the meaning, which was not given by Vixen.

Still waiting. Yet the standard that Vixen has adopted is to either:

1) not offer any evidence of her claims
2) link to an issue that doesn't address her claim
3) then when the issue comes around on the merry-go-round ONE MORE TIME, claim that it has already been settled and linked to.​

3. Thanks for this statement, Vixen. It defines "innocence fraud" to some degree. It does not explain fully whether "innocence fraud" is meant to be a crime ("fraud" has a legal definition, at least in the US) or, as stated or implied in Vixen's post #1426 in Continuation 18, it is the "ultimate unethical and immoral act" of "pretending a criminal is innocent".

At any rate, as defined by Vixen in the quoted post, "innocence fraud" is any case where "a person who would otherwise have confessed, or served their time cooperatively, are encouraged to pretend they are innocent".

Thus, any person accused of a crime who pleads not guilty rather than confessing would be committing "innocence fraud", as would that person's lawyer. Questioning the methods or results of the police and prosecution is apparently not to be allowed, if it is done, it is "innocence fraud". There apparently is no presumption of innocence in Vixen's use of the term, and no discovery, equality of arms, or the state providing adequate facilities for the defense to examine the evidence (the first term is US law, the latter two ECHR case law).

This summarizes it well.

It must bug her and cause all such consternation to read that Judge Boninsegna declared the following as a judicial fact:

CONSIDERED AS FACTS AND MATTERS OF LAW

The defendant was summoned to trial by the Judge of the Preliminary hearings
with the decree of 20-Mar-2015, for the facts cited in the charges.

The case is a follow-on of a more complex and serious one, regarding the
murder of Meredith Kercher, a young English student, which occurred in Perugia
between 01-Nov and 02-Nov-2007. Those proceedings concluded with the exoneration of the defendant of murder, that she was accused of together with her
boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito​

That must be a typo. It must be just a figure of speech. That must be it.

 

[Bill Williams]

5. Knox has been exonerated on the murder/rape charge. Windsor DWC and its law school apparently understand that while you, an anonymous internet poster with no credible arguments apparently choose not to agree to their opinion, and they are lawyers and law students. One of your prior posts claimed the beginning law students there only 18 years of age, showing you don't know the law school requirement in Canada - as in the US, those requirements include completion of an undergraduate college degree. Your statements just generate a huge laugh.

The standards may have changed, but it is not necessary in Canada to have a first degree to be accepted into law school. If it is now necessary, then something has changed since "the day".

Yet it is laughable for Vixen to suggest that U of Windsor law school had acted unethically - yet this is simply more of the same. Whenever a valid organization or peer-reviewed scientist wades in to describe the innocence of RS and/or AK, Vixen begins her smear campaign of those people/institutions.

There are really some people who believe that a now defunct Seattle PR firm manipulates the world accessing the power of US media and International Masonry.

So who are you going to believe? Me, I'm going with Vixen - simply out of sheer repetition.

 

[Numbers]

The standards may have changed, but it is not necessary in Canada to have a first degree to be accepted into law school. If it is now necessary, then something has changed since "the day".

Yet it is laughable for Vixen to suggest that U of Windsor law school had acted unethically - yet this is simply more of the same. Whenever a valid organization or peer-reviewed scientist wades in to describe the innocence of RS and/or AK, Vixen begins her smear campaign of those people/institutions.

There are really some people who believe that a now defunct Seattle PR firm manipulates the world accessing the power of US media and International Masonry.

So who are you going to believe? Me, I'm going with Vixen - simply out of sheer repetition.

I believe you are correct about this. However, it seems one must have at least two years of college credit, with some specifying "leading to a degree"; there is a minimum 2 year college requirement at McGill U., U. Calgary, U. Saskatchewan. For some others, the requirement is for at least three years of college credit and preferably four and some indicate that the credit must have been leading to a degree or that a degree must have been obtained.

For U Windsor, "Canadian & American Dual JD Program requires that admitted students have completed a four-year university degree program by August 1 of the year of entry" while for regular applicants, all that is stated is "University Program".

The admission requirements for a number of Canadian law schools are summarized at:

http://www.oxfordseminars.ca/LSAT/lsat_profiles.php#universityofwindsor

At any rate, it does not seem possible that many first-year students at Windsor would have been 18 years of age, if they were either in the Dual JD program, or satisfied a requirement for "University Program", with other requirements of "Work Experience, Community Involvement, Personal Accomplishments, Career Objectives, Personal Considerations, and Law School Admission Test Scores" and "Applicants are considered based on 7 admission criteria, viewed through an holistic lens".

 

[Numbers]

The standards may have changed, but it is not necessary in Canada to have a first degree to be accepted into law school. If it is now necessary, then something has changed since "the day".

Yet it is laughable for Vixen to suggest that U of Windsor law school had acted unethically - yet this is simply more of the same. Whenever a valid organization or peer-reviewed scientist wades in to describe the innocence of RS and/or AK, Vixen begins her smear campaign of those people/institutions.
There are really some people who believe that a now defunct Seattle PR firm manipulates the world accessing the power of US media and International Masonry.

So who are you going to believe? Me, I'm going with Vixen - simply out of sheer repetition.

I think, based on her recent post explaining what "innocence fraud" means, that Vixen does not perceive her smear campaign as anything less than a principled defense of the rights of the victims of crime and of state authorities to obtain "justice" without any consideration or application of what we in the US call "due process" or "defense rights". This difference, which I believe I am summarizing fairly, between the views of Vixen and of those who maintain that justice must be obtained through "due process" and by respecting "defense rights", is not readily resolved.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think, based on her recent post explaining what "innocence fraud" means, that Vixen does not perceive her smear campaign as anything less than a principled defense of the rights of the victims of crime and of state authorities to obtain "justice" without any consideration or application of what we in the US call "due process" or "defense rights". This difference, which I believe I am summarizing fairly, between the views of Vixen and of those who maintain that justice must be obtained through "due process" and by respecting "defense rights", is not readily resolved.

Vixen's method, indeed most of the guilters in relation to Amanda Knox (and they are mainly agnostic about Sollecito) would do away with a trial whatseoever. I mean, how many times have you heard them say, "Why would Stefanoni or Mignini lie?"

Indeed - co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi responded to a request for full disclosure by saying, "We will decide what they need to see."

Simply mounting a defence, to them, is disrespect to the victim. Actually celebrating that one has been exonerated is tantamount to "innocence fraud". Complaining that one had been coerced to confess sends them into apoplexy.

 

[Lince]

Thank you for joining in, Lince.

However, you are incorrect. Amanda and Raff were acquitted under Section 530 Para 2, and the Italian Penal Code does not say what you have added, or rather what seems to be automatically added to court templates, probably in error, here. Alternatively, it's a Marasca sleight of hand.

Article 530.1 is "Factual innocence" and is not same as 530.2: acquitted due to reasonable doubt or lack of evidence, as in this case.

It's the American based Innocence Industry Complex which is conflating 'Exonerated' with a finding of "Not Guilty". One of the definitions of a factual finding would be someone else found guilty of the crime, a confession, or a cast iron alibi.

In my book, finding a person ‘not guilty’ at the end of legal process is the same as exonerating him/her. It is not a purpose of legal proceedings to actually prove the innocence of a suspect. It is the other way around — a purpose is to prove, if possible, beyond reasonable doubt, his/her guilt. Any failure to do that (no matter under which article) just means that the person retains the status he/she had before the trial - his/her legal innocence. In other words, he/she is exonerated.

What you are suggesting looks like a deeply flawed system, when the state, after dragging a person through torturous legal proceedings and at the end failing to convincingly demonstrate his/her guilt, lashes out, out of some kind of frustration/vengeance, by giving the person the “half-hanged”, “permanently suspect” status, essentially casting him/her into a special category of inferior/demoted citizens. Not really a fan of such a system.

As long as Rudy is found guilty in conjunction with others, and Amanda's presence at the cottage is a judicial fact - which it is, and is set in stone - she cannot claim to be exonerated. No matter how many name tags the Conferences hand out.

Why do you have such a blind belief in “judicial facts” that are “set in stone”? They are just statements/proclamations made by judges. These are people that are empowered by the state to make decisions that, if they fail to properly perform their duties, essentially might destroy lives of ordinary citizens. At the same time, they are just people which, as all people, can make mistakes and misjudgements (for whatever reasons). They (the same applies to prosecution) are not semi-gods that are always beyond reproach. Even if they sometimes arrogantly behave as being such. So their statements/judgements, fancifully called “judicial facts”, are as good as they are backed by sound justifications and solid evidence that can be independently verified. Otherwise we would turn into Stalinist Soviet Union, where any person that was brought to trial was already guilty because the those that arrested and prosecuted him “by definition” had never made any mistakes.

For me, the presented justifications and evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele do not hold the water by being unconvincing, sloppy, illogical, and sometimes fantastical. Which exactly was at the end pointed out (as one of the main reasons to acquit) in the SC final verdict. So, IMHO, the “judicial facts” that you like to bring in are just testaments of embarrassing failures of the persons that produced them. The only “judicial fact” that really matters at the moment is the final SC verdict exonerating Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen's method, indeed most of the guilters in relation to Amanda Knox (and they are mainly agnostic about Sollecito) would do away with a trial whatseoever. I mean, how many times have you heard them say, "Why would Stefanoni or Mignini lie?"

Indeed - co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi responded to a request for full disclosure by saying, "We will decide what they need to see."

Simply mounting a defence, to them, is disrespect to the victim. Actually celebrating that one has been exonerated is tantamount to "innocence fraud". Complaining that one had been coerced to confess sends them into apoplexy.

I think you have explained this attitude of the guilters. I had once thought they were merely perpetuating a hoax for their entertainment. Now that "hoax" factor may be true for some, who have probably dropped out of posting since the CSC definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher in March, 2015.

But a relatively small group remains; these are, I believe, persons who don't consider "defense rights" as ethically or morally justifiable. To them, an accusation by the police must be met by a confession; but maybe not for Rudy Guede, though - he is given a pass on confessing and is entitled to his legally permitted request for revision, while Raffaele Sollecito is apparently not entitled to his legally permitted appeal for compensation, on the basis that there are no grounds for appeal, according to an anonymous internet poster. I wonder why there is this discrepancy among the guilters.

Why does the poster not simply acknowledge that if there were no grounds for an appeal on Sollecito's request for compensation, the CSC would recognize that and reject the appeal? And, of course, these events are in the hands of Sollecito, his lawyers, the prosecutor, and the CSC, so comments by any of us anonymous internet posters have no practical significance.

 

[Bill Williams]

Article 530.1 is "Factual innocence" and is not same as 530.2: acquitted due to reasonable doubt or lack of evidence, as in this case.

If even you admit that someone can be acquitted for "lack of evidence", why are you so shy to use the word "exonerated"?

As upthread, Italian judges aren't afraid to say it.

It's the American based Innocence Industry Complex which is conflating 'Exonerated' with a finding of "Not Guilty". One of the definitions of a factual finding would be someone else found guilty of the crime, a confession, or a cast iron alibi.

You just keep inventing things. The invention of "American based Innocence Industry Complex" was particularly good, with the word "Complex" giving it that je ne sais quoi.

You are the person saying that the word "hypothetical" has no place in legalese, and you're inventing "American based Innocence Industry Complex". Hoots!

 

[Bill Williams]

You just keep inventing things. The invention of "American based Innocence Industry Complex" was particularly good, with the word "Complex" giving it that je ne sais quoi.

Google "Innocence Industry Complex". There are exactly two hits. And one of them is Vixen's invention of the term in this thread.....

 

[Stacyhs]

We have already discussed months ago the "autopsy pic" story that you brought up . I even posted the picture that you originally falsely claimed was a "naked" photo of Meredith but which was, in fact, highly edited to show nothing graphic. The picture that you claim came from "private autopsy photos" came from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock blog and was available to the public. But you just keep on repeating otherwise. I'm sure you'll convince someone it's the truth eventually. Just not us.

As for the rest of your post, nothing that you mention even comes close to the threatening posts to "harm" Amanda that Rhodes has made.
I guess Rhodes is the type of person that TJMK, PMF, and TMofMK attracts.

I'd think anyone would be "outraged" by threats to harm someone, regardless of which side of this case they are on. Are you?

We know Bruce Fischer has the autopsy photos. Your friend admits it (see attached).

He also admits it here: http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?p=129219#p129219

and here.

It's disingenuous to say prove the ones posted earlier when you know there was a picture of Meredith with a gaping knife wound on Twitter with one of the PIP fake accounts. That account suspended. No, the picture was not saved. It was awful. But we can imagine who would do something like that. The one urging Bruce to release the photos. Clearly, she had access.

I do not approve of Graham Rhodes' comments. However, I am not sure why you have brought out something dated 2015. Did you not complain to the right people at the time? You think a rant by a random person is mitigation for unacceptable conduct by a whole group of you? Clearly you do, as argued, above.

Two wrongs do not make a right, so why would you think this cancels out the outrageous behaviour, as outlined, above, by people claiming to be the official campaigning group for Amanda?

You think it OK to circulate private autopsy pictures?

1) I never said that Bruce F. did not have the autopsy photos.

2) The photo we were discussing, which you falsely claimed was of MK's naked body, was obtained from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock.

3) I have never seen, nor did I know, that any picture of MK "with a gaping knife wound" was posted earlier on Twitter. I have never, and will never, belong to Twitter. Please do not have the audacity to tell me what I "know".

5) "Imagine" who posted it under a fake account all you like. It means nothing.

6) Rhodes' post was not "a rant by a random person". He is a frequent poster on the PGP websites and in comment sections.

7) I never said, nor implied, that Rhodes' post "is mitigation for unacceptable conduct". That is your incorrect inference.

You think a rant by a random person is mitigation for unacceptable conduct by a whole group of you? Clearly you do, as argued, above.

Clearly, I do not.

"... of you"? Please name a single PIP here who has posted threats to "harm" anyone.

8) Clearly the mods here see Rhodes' post as a death threat as it was deleted with instructions "Please do not post death threats here".

9) The autopsy photos are not private. They are part of the official court records.

10) Annella urged Fisher to publish the blood splatter on MK's breasts as evidence that the bra was removed before she died contrary to what was claimed. I'll repeat; nothing graphic was revealed in the photo.

 

[Numbers]

1) I never said that Bruce F. did not have the autopsy photos.

2) The photo we were discussing, which you falsely claimed was of MK's naked body, was obtained from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock.

3) I have never seen, nor did I know, that any picture of MK "with a gaping knife wound" was posted earlier on Twitter. I have never, and will never, belong to Twitter. Please do not have the audacity to tell me what I "know".

5) "Imagine" who posted it under a fake account all you like. It means nothing.

6) Rhodes' post was not "a rant by a random person". He is a frequent poster on the PGP websites and in comment sections.
7) I never said, nor implied, that Rhodes' post "is mitigation for unacceptable conduct". That is your incorrect inference.

Clearly, I do not.

"... of you"? Please name a single PIP here who has posted threats to "harm" anyone.

8) Clearly the mods here see Rhodes' post as a death threat as it was deleted with instructions "Please do not post death threats here".

9) The autopsy photos are not private. They are part of the official court records.

10) Annella urged Fisher to publish the blood splatter on MK's breasts as evidence that the bra was removed before she died contrary to what was claimed. I'll repeat; nothing graphic was revealed in the photo.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7166958e3db3749eb7.jpg[/qimg]

Posted by Vixen, #2958, 24 Sep 2016, Continuation 22:

"Grahame Rhodes is a tongue-in-cheek character. The discussion was about Amanda's 'article' 'Rituals' so hence the topic of death came up. As Voltaire said, what a fuss about an omelette.

It is a pity you are not concerned about innocence fraud where killers get away with having murdered good, decent people, much loved by the families and who contributed to society."

 

[Planigale]

Why is Amanda hanging around Innocence Conferences, unless she is hoping it'll rub off by association?

As a Court of Law, Florence, states, it is a legal fact Amanda was at the crime scene, during the crime. The acquittal was not an exoneration.



The Florence Appeal Court, composed of the judges
-dottoressa Silvia Martuscelli, Presiding Judge
-dottoressa Paola Masi, Recording Judge
-Dotoressa Anna Favi, Judge
having met in Chambers, and having heard the parties attending the hearing on 27
January 2017

The law courts actually state, ' she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she
knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate'.

Public domain. Legal fact.

Do you have any worries about the court drawing conclusions about the actions of Knox in a forum where she was not represented? Also using documents that had been ruled inadmissible!

 

[Welshman]

Vixen's method, indeed most of the guilters in relation to Amanda Knox (and they are mainly agnostic about Sollecito) would do away with a trial whatseoever. I mean, how many times have you heard them say, "Why would Stefanoni or Mignini lie?"

Indeed - co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi responded to a request for full disclosure by saying, "We will decide what they need to see."

Simply mounting a defence, to them, is disrespect to the victim. Actually celebrating that one has been exonerated is tantamount to "innocence fraud". Complaining that one had been coerced to confess sends them into apoplexy.

What I get from Vixen and other members of TJMK is a blind obedience towards people in authority. Police/prosecutors are always honest and corruption by police/prosecutors does not happen. Railroading never happens. Innocent defendants don't exist. Police/prosecutors will always be slavishly defended regardless of their actions. This explains why Vixen and other members of TJMK slavishly support the police/prosecutors in the Kercher case despite carrying out corruption and misconduct on a massive scale. If someone is found not guilty or a conviction quashed it is only because of political pressure or judges being bribed. Acquittals are never really acquittals. If independent experts ' conclusions favour the defense, the experts must be corrupt. People who campaign for the wrongly convicted are only motivated by money.

 

[Stacyhs]

Posted by Vixen, #2958, Continuation 22:

"Grahame Rhodes is a tongue-in-cheek character. The discussion was about Amanda's 'article' 'Rituals' so hence the topic of death came up. As Voltaire said, what a fuss about an omelette.

It is a pity you are not concerned about innocence fraud where killers get away with having murdered good, decent people, much loved by the families and who contributed to society."

 

[js202]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7166958e3f9cf8fbe7.png[/qimg]

Would that head in the sand would begin to cover it. What can only be referred to as a grotesque hypocrisy has been on display here with regard to smoothing over the subhuman threats and fantasies of Grahame Rhodes. Truly disgusting, and disqualifying for civilized interaction.

On the other hand, I myself wouldn't flinch for a moment from meeting the sicko Mr. Rhodes in a confined space, minus his weapon collection. I suspect he's just the type who'd be cowering in a corner pretty quickly.

 

[Bill Williams]

People who campaign for the wrongly convicted are only motivated by money.

I know I am.

 

[TruthCalls]

In my book, finding a person ‘not guilty’ at the end of legal process is the same as exonerating him/her. It is not a purpose of legal proceedings to actually prove the innocence of a suspect. It is the other way around — a purpose is to prove, if possible, beyond reasonable doubt, his/her guilt. Any failure to do that (no matter under which article) just means that the person retains the status he/she had before the trial - his/her legal innocence. In other words, he/she is exonerated.

What you are suggesting looks like a deeply flawed system, when the state, after dragging a person through torturous legal proceedings and at the end failing to convincingly demonstrate his/her guilt, lashes out, out of some kind of frustration/vengeance, by giving the person the “half-hanged”, “permanently suspect” status, essentially casting him/her into a special category of inferior/demoted citizens. Not really a fan of such a system.




Why do you have such a blind belief in “judicial facts” that are “set in stone”? They are just statements/proclamations made by judges. These are people that are empowered by the state to make decisions that, if they fail to properly perform their duties, essentially might destroy lives of ordinary citizens. At the same time, they are just people which, as all people, can make mistakes and misjudgements (for whatever reasons). They (the same applies to prosecution) are not semi-gods that are always beyond reproach. Even if they sometimes arrogantly behave as being such. So their statements/judgements, fancifully called “judicial facts”, are as good as they are backed by sound justifications and solid evidence that can be independently verified. Otherwise we would turn into Stalinist Soviet Union, where any person that was brought to trial was already guilty because the those that arrested and prosecuted him “by definition” had never made any mistakes.

For me, the presented justifications and evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele do not hold the water by being unconvincing, sloppy, illogical, and sometimes fantastical. Which exactly was at the end pointed out (as one of the main reasons to acquit) in the SC final verdict. So, IMHO, the “judicial facts” that you like to bring in are just testaments of embarrassing failures of the persons that produced them. The only “judicial fact” that really matters at the moment is the final SC verdict exonerating Amanda and Raffaele.

Well, this is what makes Vixen, Vixen.

For us, it's not acceptable to call conjecture, brought about by a theory which was the direct result of speculation which came about as the result of a civil case which was driven by statements inadmissible for a criminal trial and by a criminal trial which had no representation for those ultimately affected, anything other than what it is - conjecture. But for Vixen it's a "legal fact, an indisputable judicial fact set in stone"