The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

[Numbers]

Would a murder case suffice for a "serious crime"? Hellmann was the second judge in this appellate court murder case before becoming a Supreme Court judge. And before Vixen accuses me of googling like mad to find it, it was sent to me by another PIP who has been following this discussion but who chooses not to post.




http://www.misteriditalia.it/altri-misteri/cinzia-bruno/

Citation for Hellmann becoming a Supreme Court judge?

Was not his highest judicial position the Assize Appeal Court of Perugia?

 

[Vixen]

Would a murder case suffice for a "serious crime"? Hellmann was the second judge in this appellate court murder case before becoming a Supreme Court judge. And before Vixen accuses me of googling like mad to find it, it was sent to me by another PIP who has been following this discussion but who chooses not to post.




http://www.misteriditalia.it/altri-misteri/cinzia-bruno/

One swallow does not a summer make.

 

[Vixen]

Divert divert divert.....

Level broadside at Quennell.....

Divert divert.

Make up your mind! You were briefly a vulture yourself!

Nonsense. It was just a short blast of the horn.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nonsense. It was just a short blast of the horn.

LOL! This one was genuinely clever!

 

[Stacyhs]

So we take it you can't provide any evidence that Hellmann was "an inexperienced-in-serious-crime but well-meaning Judge."

So back to the original question we are, aren't we?

So after two days of you and Stacyhs frantically searching for a citation, there are none.
.

Stacyhs, the lady with the amazing ability to know what others are thinking. Of course, that must be it.

I don't recall his ever recommending War and Peace or even The Little House on the Prairie for that matter.

What can it all mean?

You really must remember that little black arrow. It was you who accused me (falsely) of searching frantically for a citation regarding Hellmann. So, yes, I strongly suspected what you would do based on past behavior.

Considering the fact that you are constantly telling us what AK and RS were thinking and believing, the irony of your statement is very apparent.

You didn't answer my question: has PQ recommended NvdL's other books on this case? Your War and Peace/Little House on the Prairie remark is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep the question. What can that mean?

 

[Stacyhs]

Citation for Hellmann becoming a Supreme Court judge?

Was not his highest judicial position the Assize Appeal Court of Perugia?

Sorry, that was my mistake. I've corrected the original post. Yes, his highest position was on the Assize Appeal Court of Perugia.

 

[Stacyhs]

One swallow does not a summer make.

Try again. You said he was "inexperienced-in serious-crime" that was not "fraud or treason". I cited a murder case he adjudicated. That's one more citation than you've given us supporting your claim.

Remember, repeating a lie does not make it any more true. You and a certain POTUS should have learned that by now. But, no...

 

[Stacyhs]

This claim by NvdL is rich:

In DOUBT [which was banned at first by strident Pro Knoxers and then resurrected as DECEIT]

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/holdingtank/comments/nick_van_der_leek/

Notice how he blames PIP for the ban as if we have any control over what books Amazon bans. He (not so) mysteriously fails to mention Amazon removed the book until he edited out the plagiarized work. Another NvdL "alternate fact".

Nick plugs his books on TJMK, including the Front Page. I'd say Pete has supported his other books.

 

[bagels]

The overall issue with arguing this case is, the PIP position is that Amanda Knox is the most obvious and well supported wrongful conviction case of the modern era in wrongful conviction case history. The PGP don't seem to offer anything to counter this position. It's not like they're pointing to other cases they think have way more innocent people. So the PIP position is self verified. The PGP and PIP share the exact same position, they just interpret it different. Amanda Knox is the most obvious and well supported wrongful conviction case of the modern era - (PGP addendum) but she's still clearly guilty and so is everybody else that claims to be wrongfully convicted.

 

[Bill Williams]

This claim by NvdL is rich:


http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/holdingtank/comments/nick_van_der_leek/

Notice how he blames PIP for the ban as if we have any control over what books Amazon bans. He (not so) mysteriously fails to mention Amazon removed the book until he edited out the plagiarized work. Another NvdL "alternate fact".

Nick plugs his books on TJMK, including the Front Page. I'd say Pete has supported his other books.

Did Amazon not suspend his account, and therefore all his sales were effected?

 

[Stacyhs]

Did Amazon not suspend his account, and therefore all his sales were effected?

I don't know if his entire account was suspended or if only that one book was. But he's blaming the PIP as if we have any control over Amazon instead of putting the blame where it belongs: on himself. If he had correctly cited the plagiarized parts as some PGP claim he did, Amazon would not have made him remove them.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't know if his entire account was suspended or if only that one book was. But he's blaming the PIP as if we have any control over Amazon instead of putting the blame where it belongs: on himself. If he had correctly cited the plagiarized parts as some PGP claim he did, Amazon would not have made him remove them.

I believe his complaint about the plagiarism was cut and pasted to this thread circa May or June 2015. The complaint he made (IIRC) was that he was being deprived of his livelihood, meaning that his whole account had been suspended until he rectified the plagiarism.

 

[Stacyhs]

I believe his complaint about the plagiarism was cut and pasted to this thread circa May or June 2015. The complaint he made (IIRC) was that he was being deprived of his livelihood, meaning that his whole account had been suspended until he rectified the plagiarism.

Looks like he didn't learn his lesson.

 

[Planigale]

This is an interesting article on the number of lawyers in Italy and the judicial process there. Apparently, even the Italian government knows it's crap. Italy ranks second to Greece with the number of lawyers at 375 per 100,000 people. And, until recently, becoming a lawyer in Italy was easy...as does becoming a "doctor". I guess that explains a lot.

https://www.thelocal.it/20150310/italy-packed-with-lawyers-but-justice-slow

This is an interesting article although from 2011 (which makes it more relevant to the case discussed here).

Although it takes a bit of effort as the article is in Italian it is worth reading. It relates a series of problem with the Italian criminal justice system. Problems we can see reflected in this case. Police poorly trained at investigating suspects. A tendency to look for over complex solutions and ignore the simple solution. Experts with no competence and no system of external validation. A reluctance to question expert opinion in case it opens questions about the safety of previous convictions. The problem that the first case court nearly always follows the prosecutors view of the case and it is only the second level court that properly evaluates the evidence. (This fits with Vixen's statistic that 50% of first level convictions are overthrown.)

As i have previously said the problem with the Knox conviction is not that it represents a unique miscarriage of justice, but a systematic failing in the Italian legal system, and an inability of the Italian legislature to bring about improvements.

 

[Rolfe]

The overall issue with arguing this case is, the PIP position is that Amanda Knox is the most obvious and well supported wrongful conviction case of the modern era in wrongful conviction case history. The PGP don't seem to offer anything to counter this position. It's not like they're pointing to other cases they think have way more innocent people. So the PIP position is self verified. The PGP and PIP share the exact same position, they just interpret it different. Amanda Knox is the most obvious and well supported wrongful conviction case of the modern era - (PGP addendum) but she's still clearly guilty and so is everybody else that claims to be wrongfully convicted.

If you said "best known" I'd agree with you, but there are many cases even more egregious than this one in America alone. They just don't have the same public profile.

 

[bagels]

If you said "best known" I'd agree with you, but there are many cases even more egregious than this one in America alone. They just don't have the same public profile.

It would have to be a case where the wrongfully convicted had an airtight alibi (such as being witnessed by a dozen independent people on the other side of the country, or standing in front of CCTV video for the duration of the crime) and in addition to that, the actual killer left a ton of definitive evidence and was caught before the wrongful conviction, and volunteered to having nothing to do with the wrongfully convicted (as happened in this case), and the police were proven to have planted evidence. That's pretty rare.

But regardless if this case is blatant or mild on the wrongful conviction spectrum, the PGP don't offer up any alternative examples. They don't concede that your own DNA being found in your own sink is the type of evidence one might expect in a wrongful conviction. That flaky contradictory eyewitness testimony is suspect, etc. Most importantly, they don't create an outline of what would constitute reasonable doubt, what it would take in this case and how that compares to other wrongful conviction cases. In other words, they aren't having an actual argument. It has never happened with this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

But regardless if this case is blatant or mild on the wrongful conviction spectrum, the PGP don't offer up any alternative examples. They don't concede that your own DNA being found in your own sink is the type of evidence one might expect in a wrongful conviction. That flaky contradictory eyewitness testimony is suspect, etc. Most importantly, they don't create an outline of what would constitute reasonable doubt, what it would take in this case and how that compares to other wrongful conviction cases. In other words, they aren't having an actual argument. It has never happened with this case.

One of the things I've had to get my head around in posting about this case is the concept of "falsifiability".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability?wprov=sfla1

The scenerio PIP have presented over the years is inherently falsifiable, and when no one actually can falsify it, that's what points to innocence for the pair.

In any of the many PGP theories, particularly the ever shifting motives offered, spend copious amounts of time removing the items which falsify each of the PGP scenerios.

Case in point: I've never once heard a PGP theory even address that Amanda's DNA was collected from the very bathroom she'd used for weeks.

Instead of admitting that that should be incorporated as (at least in theory) something which might falsify their views - they simply ignore it. Never mention it. Deprecate it as a "PIP talking point", and hope the deprecation itself distracts.

The flaky eyewitness testimony is the same. Simply ignore the problems with it, or default to, "It's a judicial truth, and that settles it."

 

[Numbers]

It would have to be a case where the wrongfully convicted had an airtight alibi (such as being witnessed by a dozen independent people on the other side of the country, or standing in front of CCTV video for the duration of the crime) and in addition to that, the actual killer left a ton of definitive evidence and was caught before the wrongful conviction, and volunteered to having nothing to do with the wrongfully convicted (as happened in this case), and the police were proven to have planted evidence. That's pretty rare.

But regardless if this case is blatant or mild on the wrongful conviction spectrum, the PGP don't offer up any alternative examples. They don't concede that your own DNA being found in your own sink is the type of evidence one might expect in a wrongful conviction. That flaky contradictory eyewitness testimony is suspect, etc. Most importantly, they don't create an outline of what would constitute reasonable doubt, what it would take in this case and how that compares to other wrongful conviction cases. In other words, they aren't having an actual argument. It has never happened with this case.

One of the things I've had to get my head around in posting about this case is the concept of "falsifiability".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability?wprov=sfla1

The scenerio PIP have presented over the years is inherently falsifiable, and when no one actually can falsify it, that's what points to innocence for the pair.

In any of the many PGP theories, particularly the ever shifting motives offered, spend copious amounts of time removing the items which falsify each of the PGP scenerios.

Case in point: I've never once heard a PGP theory even address that Amanda's DNA was collected from the very bathroom she'd used for weeks.

Instead of admitting that that should be incorporated as (at least in theory) something which might falsify their views - they simply ignore it. Never mention it. Deprecate it as a "PIP talking point", and hope the deprecation itself distracts.

The flaky eyewitness testimony is the same. Simply ignore the problems with it, or default to, "It's a judicial truth, and that settles it."

What is outlined above is the very heart of the inquisitorial method where defense arguments are ignored or arbitrarily dismissed. It parallels the "reasoning" in the Massei court, Chieffi CSC panel, and Nencini court motivation reports.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is an interesting article although from 2011 (which makes it more relevant to the case discussed here).

Although it takes a bit of effort as the article is in Italian it is worth reading. It relates a series of problem with the Italian criminal justice system. Problems we can see reflected in this case. Police poorly trained at investigating suspects. A tendency to look for over complex solutions and ignore the simple solution. Experts with no competence and no system of external validation. A reluctance to question expert opinion in case it opens questions about the safety of previous convictions. The problem that the first case court nearly always follows the prosecutors view of the case and it is only the second level court that properly evaluates the evidence. (This fits with Vixen's statistic that 50% of first level convictions are overthrown.)

As i have previously said the problem with the Knox conviction is not that it represents a unique miscarriage of justice, but a systematic failing in the Italian legal system, and an inability of the Italian legislature to bring about improvements.

The article I gave the link to is in English, not Italian. Otherwise, I agree with your post.

 

[Planigale]

The article I gave the link to is in English, not Italian. Otherwise, I agree with your post.

For some reason I get an Italian version!