• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Excellent. I think the most important rule, never to be broken, is that all interrogations must be videotaped. It protects both those being interviewed/interrogated and the police.

I also think that Italy's system of having the prosecutor lead and direct the police investigation is highly flawed. Prosecutors are looking for evidence of guilt, not innocence. It is inherent in the prosecution mentality. Mignini, by his own admission, saw Amanda and Raff guilty from the very beginning. The police should be independent of the prosecution, control the investigation, and then report their findings to the prosecution.
Click to expand...

Having a prosecutor leading the investigation can create disastrous consequences when you have corrupt prosecutors such as Mignini running investigations.
 
Welshman said:
Having a prosecutor leading the investigation can create disastrous consequences when you have corrupt prosecutors such as Mignini running investigations.
Click to expand...

It can have disastrous consequences even when the prosecutor is honest and trying to do the job as well as possible. Why? Because prosecutors inherently see things from a guilt viewpoint. It's their job to prove BARD a defendant's guilt, not innocence.
 
Stacyhs said:
It can have disastrous consequences even when the prosecutor is honest and trying to do the job as well as possible. Why? Because prosecutors inherently see things from a guilt viewpoint. It's their job to prove BARD a defendant's guilt, not innocence.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, a prosecutor (here, at least) could be facing a slam-dunk BARD case, and still not proceed. Prosecutors (here) also have the responsibility to discern if it is "in the public interest" to do so.

From this vantage point Mignini was not so much corrupt in 2007, as he was desperate for a win. At the time he'd been provisionally convicted of abuse of office - when he lost in 2011 he told reporters his troubles had started with the Narducci case.

Then others took over from him.... he cannot be said to have been responsible for the 2013 ISC reversal, nor the 2014 reconviction. There was something else going on after Mignini that still has not been fully exposed.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Not exactly, a prosecutor (here, at least) could be facing a slam-dunk BARD case, and still not proceed. Prosecutors (here) also have the responsibility to discern if it is "in the public interest" to do so.

From this vantage point Mignini was not so much corrupt in 2007, as he was desperate for a win. At the time he'd been provisionally convicted of abuse of office - when he lost in 2011 he told reporters his troubles had started with the Narducci case.

Then others took over from him.... he cannot be said to have been responsible for the 2013 ISC reversal, nor the 2014 reconviction. There was something else going on after Mignini that still has not been fully exposed.
Click to expand...

I agree that Mignini was not responsible for any of the trials but the first one. Nor do think that he was "corrupt". I think he was sincere in his beliefs, if misguided, and that he was desperate for a "win". This need colored his investigation and influenced his actions. But my point is that prosecutors are inherently guilt biased. It's their job to convict the defendant and that affects how they see things and what they do.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
And if they cannot say one way or another due to lack of evidence, the conclusion is innocent. This is presumption of innocence, Vixen. Do you understand that now?

The two merits courts were also overruled by the Italian Supreme Court because they exhibited extremely faulty logic and the investigation was completely botched. Do you remember that part?
Click to expand...

The panel of jurors/judges at both merits hearing came down fairly and squarely on 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'.
 
Mike1711 said:
So because a civil court requires a 51/49 majority it therefore cannot contradict a criminal court, despite the fact that the ruling or verdict is contradictory?

Right???...:jaw-dropp:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


a) We were talking about the wording of statutes, not 'law in general'. Of course there are contradictions in that sense, or people would never be allowed to appeal.

b) It is a fact that the standard of legal proof required in a criminal court is much stiffer than in a civil court where you only need to show >50% probability that your case has merit. The reason OJ was found against in a civil court is for that reason. In a murder case, in particular, the bar is very high. Thus, we can be confident that the courts that found Knox and Raff guilty of aggravated murder knew exactly what they were doing and why, despite reluctance because of their age, they found them Guilty, as charged and proven BARD.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Aaaaaaaaand we're back! How good :rolleyes:

I wonder how Vixen marries her "understanding" of BARD (and the metaphysical "truth" this may or may not represent) with, say, a situation where a court found Stefan Kiszko guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that he raped and murdered Lesley Molseed - a verdict subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal in his first appeal - yet later information came to light proving Kiszko's total factual innocence.....?

How could that BE, Vixen???? How could a (lower) court have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiszko had killed Molseed, when we now know that for certain Kiszko did not kill Molseed.

And what lessons can we take from a case like that one to the fiasco which comprised the Knox/Sollecito trial process for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Vixen? In your answer, please make particular reference to the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down by the Massei and Nencini courts, and correlate them with the "guilty BARD" verdict handed down on Kiszko in his trial (with a cross-reference to the fact that we now know that Kiszko factually did not commit the murder).
Click to expand...


Kiszko's conviction was found unsafe because his doctor in endrinocology came forward to give expert testimony that Kiszko was infertile so unlikely he could have left his bodily fluids.
 
Vixen said:
The panel of jurors/judges at both merits hearing came down fairly and squarely on 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'.
Click to expand...

.... except for the merits court which found them not guilty of aggravated murder. Except for the Italian Supreme Court when reviewing the Nencini conviction, which annulled the conviction showing how, in law, the Nencini court should have acquitted with the evidence in front of it.

You always leave that part out.
 
Vixen said:
The panel of jurors/judges at both merits hearing came down fairly and squarely on 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'.
Click to expand...

And they were both overturned by the highest court in Italy, because they made egregious errors in logic and the investigation was completely botched. I am pretty sure you remember this, so I am guessing you are just choosing to willfully ignore it?

Have you ever come up with a reason why there are zero independent scientists that have spoken out, published papers, given lectures, etc. in favor of the prosecution? Wouldn't you think if there was this massive error on the part of the Italian Supreme Court there would be at least one professional scientist explaining why? But instead all of the scientists are in support of the defense's case? Including several of the top forensic geneticists in the world? Does this twist your brain into pretzels or do you simply choose not to think about it much...?
 
Vixen said:
Italian judges are not allowed to interpret law, as it Italian Law is not common law and is not based on case precedent. It is strictly based on the CPP to the letter.
Click to expand...

This is of course the problem. European human rights law supersedes Italian law. The ECHR reports cases that define the law. Italian judges need to interpret Italian law with ECHR case law in mind. ECHR case law is clear any (reasonable) doubtful issue has to be determined in the defendants favour. The courts were not free to determine that the DNA of Knox was deposited in the bathroom consequent on the murder, since this was not proven. Steffanoni said so! In this situation Marasca's only legal option was to interpret the DNA findings in favour of the defendant.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
And they were both overturned by the highest court in Italy, because they made egregious errors in logic and the investigation was completely botched. I am pretty sure you remember this, so I am guessing you are just choosing to willfully ignore it?

Have you ever come up with a reason why there are zero independent scientists that have spoken out, published papers, given lectures, etc. in favor of the prosecution? Wouldn't you think if there was this massive error on the part of the Italian Supreme Court there would be at least one professional scientist explaining why? But instead all of the scientists are in support of the defense's case? Including several of the top forensic geneticists in the world? Does this twist your brain into pretzels or do you simply choose not to think about it much...?
Click to expand...

The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.

If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.
 
Vixen said:
The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.

If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.
Click to expand...

Then why was that verdict definitively annulled?
 
Planigale said:
This is of course the problem. European human rights law supersedes Italian law. The ECHR reports cases that define the law. Italian judges need to interpret Italian law with ECHR case law in mind. ECHR case law is clear any (reasonable) doubtful issue has to be determined in the defendants favour. The courts were not free to determine that the DNA of Knox was deposited in the bathroom consequent on the murder, since this was not proven. Steffanoni said so! In this situation Marasca's only legal option was to interpret the DNA findings in favour of the defendant.
Click to expand...

The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to just three perpetrators, and allows one to see the gestält:

Amanda Knox
Rudy Guede (whom Knox covered up for)
Raffaele Sollecito (who lost track of all his lies).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to just three perpetrators, and allows one to see the gestält:

Amanda Knox
Rudy Guede (whom Knox covered up for)
Raffaele Sollecito (who lost track of all his lies).
Click to expand...

Simply stating this - and repeating it ad naseam - does not make it true. At some point you have to address the ten or twelve outstanding questions to you about this which you simply refuse to address.
 
Vixen said:
The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.
Click to expand...

And the court found them innocent, remember?


If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.
Click to expand...

I am starting to think your brain has twisted reality to such an extent that you actually think Amanda (and Raf, remember him?) were ultimately found guilty by the highest court in Italy. Remember, all authorities, legal and scientific, have unequivocally found they are innocent and Rudy killed Meredith alone. (did your brain just completely black out when you read that and enter another reality? Honest question)
 
Vixen honestly does not realize anything has happened since Massei in 2009. Anyone else worried about her?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom