• 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.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
An article about a case with some parallels to the Knox - Sollecito case:

https://www.propublica.org/article/...million-to-man-wrongfully-convicted-of-murder

"Detectives had pressured Thompson in the interrogation room until they had “enough to get James Owens,” as one of the detectives later put it. Owens’ lawsuit alleged that the detectives purposefully didn’t tell his attorneys about Thompson’s waffling {continually changing story, delivered under pressure of the police}, as is required by law....

But in 2006, semen found in the victim was tested, and the DNA didn’t match Owens or Thompson. Other key forensic evidence proved to be unrelated to the men or wrongly analyzed. Instead of letting the men go free, the Baltimore state’s attorney’s office doubled down. After Owens was granted a new trial, the prosecutors refused to concede his innocence and instead tried to force him into a troubling deal known as an Alford plea. If he took it, Owens would be quickly released from prison and allowed to maintain his innocence on the record, but he’d still be a convicted murderer. And, significantly for cities with checkered histories, the deal would have prevented him from suing. For their part, prosecutors would keep a win on the books and avoid admitting a mistake...."
Click to expand...


The parallels here with the Knox/Sollecito trial process - especially in regards to tunnel vision and confirmation bias on the part of the investigators leading to noble-cause (in their eyes) corruption - are unmistakable.

And the last paragraph of this quote also illustrates vividly just how police and prosecutors so often really are NOT in the business of objective investigation and prosecution. Rather, they are in the business of gaining convictions. Even a bad psychologist could easily work out how it might not be seen by police or prosecutors to be in their best interest to investigate a crime, discover that there's simply not enough credible, reliable evidence to charge (let alone convict) anyone, and leave it unsolved*. On top of that, if it subsequently becomes clear that the police/prosecution theory of the crime was wrong, it's clear to see how they can feel unable to admit to their failings - even when the interests of justice demand that they do so.

Oh and also, the case you've quoted is a prime example of just how disgraceful the whole concept of an "Alford Plea" is. Police and prosecutors know full well the disgusting game they are playing when they offer such a plea: you (the (wrongly) convicted and imprisoned person) can get out of jail and return to society extremely quickly - and indeed far more quickly than if you went through a full appeals process - but in return your conviction still stands (and stands as a "win" for police and prosecutors.....) and you'll never be able to claim compensation. Federal government in the US really needs to do something to force State legislatures to scrap this nasty, unjust mechanism as soon as possible. One can only be thankful that Italy doesn't have the equivalent of Alford pleas.


* Though of course in the instance of the Kercher murder, even this was not the case: the crime was in fact easily solvable, in that it was committed by Guede, acting alone. That is precisely what every single piece of credible, reliable evidence (and lack of evidence) pointed to. But it's equally clear to see that the police and prosecutor were so heavily invested in the (ludicrous and wholly unsupported) three-person scenario - including Knox and Sollecito - by the time that evidence came in overwhelmingly implicating Guede, that they clearly felt it would be professionally and personally hugely damaging/humiliating for them to admit they were wrong and simply prosecute Guede alone.....
 
Numbers said:
The autonomous nervous system of guilters independently functions during posting, thus producing gems such as "delirious tremens".
Click to expand...

Either that or they've been taking too much Toledo Window Box and the "TCH" is getting to them.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh and I forgot to mention, Vixen, that you excelled yourself once more with Part 14,308 in a series entitled "Vixen tries to appear educated and jargon-excelling by using italicised Latin terms in posts, but hilariously spells the term incorrectly".]

(It's delirium tremens, Vixen - not "delirious tremens". Once again, we exhort you not to use "clever" terms which you either do not understand or cannot even properly spell.....)
Click to expand...

Well done. You spotted a typo. I am glad this brightened up your day. I will have to do it more often!
 
acbytesla said:
That and the fact that was a commercial flight and other passengers saw her on the flight. As she was filmed by the media in an international airport in Rome and moments after that flight touched down in Seattle, Amanda spoke in a press conference.

These people are Looney Tunes.
Click to expand...

People charter flights all the time.
 
LondonJohn said:
The parallels here with the Knox/Sollecito trial process - especially in regards to tunnel vision and confirmation bias on the part of the investigators leading to noble-cause (in their eyes) corruption - are unmistakable.

And the last paragraph of this quote also illustrates vividly just how police and prosecutors so often really are NOT in the business of objective investigation and prosecution. Rather, they are in the business of gaining convictions. Even a bad psychologist could easily work out how it might not be seen by police or prosecutors to be in their best interest to investigate a crime, discover that there's simply not enough credible, reliable evidence to charge (let alone convict) anyone, and leave it unsolved*. On top of that, if it subsequently becomes clear that the police/prosecution theory of the crime was wrong, it's clear to see how they can feel unable to admit to their failings - even when the interests of justice demand that they do so.

Oh and also, the case you've quoted is a prime example of just how disgraceful the whole concept of an "Alford Plea" is. Police and prosecutors know full well the disgusting game they are playing when they offer such a plea: you (the (wrongly) convicted and imprisoned person) can get out of jail and return to society extremely quickly - and indeed far more quickly than if you went through a full appeals process - but in return your conviction still stands (and stands as a "win" for police and prosecutors.....) and you'll never be able to claim compensation. Federal government in the US really needs to do something to force State legislatures to scrap this nasty, unjust mechanism as soon as possible. One can only be thankful that Italy doesn't have the equivalent of Alford pleas.


* Though of course in the instance of the Kercher murder, even this was not the case: the crime was in fact easily solvable, in that it was committed by Guede, acting alone. That is precisely what every single piece of credible, reliable evidence (and lack of evidence) pointed to. But it's equally clear to see that the police and prosecutor were so heavily invested in the (ludicrous and wholly unsupported) three-person scenario - including Knox and Sollecito - by the time that evidence came in overwhelmingly implicating Guede, that they clearly felt it would be professionally and personally hugely damaging/humiliating for them to admit they were wrong and simply prosecute Guede alone.....
Click to expand...


Such things happen when you want to bypass the 12-man jury trial system, as the PIP like to advocate, when they believe armchair trials and trial by media should replace Massei and Nencini.

A huge number of crimes in the US are dealt with by plea bargaining and hardly anyone opts for a full trial for fear of draconian sentencing. So a trial is bypassed in exchange for a lesser sentence.

Next, prisoners are freed out of compassion, and as it would be unconstitutional to reverse a previous final verdict the deal is 'you free, no retrial'.


And yet people like you claim the Italian justice system of two automatic rights to an appeal - all the way up to (giddy heights! - the Supreme Court itself, together with full written reasons, along the way, and short life sentences, as compared to the USA - as being unfair, unjust and 'fascist'.

Make up your mind!
 
Vixen said:
Well done. You spotted a typo. I am glad this brightened up your day. I will have to do it more often!
Click to expand...



Yeah...... that's not a typo. This has been explained to you before. Typing "...ous" instead of "...um" is not a typo. It's a manifestation of ignorance.
 
Vixen said:
Such things happen when you want to bypass the 12-man jury trial system, as the PIP like to advocate, when they believe armchair trials and trial by media should replace Massei and Nencini.

A huge number of crimes in the US are dealt with by plea bargaining and hardly anyone opts for a full trial for fear of draconian sentencing. So a trial is bypassed in exchange for a lesser sentence.

Next, prisoners are freed out of compassion, and as it would be unconstitutional to reverse a previous final verdict the deal is 'you free, no retrial'.


And yet people like you claim the Italian justice system of two automatic rights to an appeal - all the way up to (giddy heights! - the Supreme Court itself, together with full written reasons, along the way, and short life sentences, as compared to the USA - as being unfair, unjust and 'fascist'.

Make up your mind!
Click to expand...


Wow. There are about 8 strawman misrepresentations of a pro-acquittal position in this one post of yours. Impressive! Try to identify them all for me, Vixen.

(By the way - and as has been pointed out to you already - the Supreme Court stage of the process in cases such as this in Italy is NOT an appeal.)
 
Vixen said:
A huge number of crimes in the US are dealt with by plea bargaining and hardly anyone opts for a full trial for fear of draconian sentencing. So a trial is bypassed in exchange for a lesser sentence.
Click to expand...

Hmmm imagine if Guede felt compelled to testify against his alleged accomplices for a lighter sentence. Then he wouldn't have gotten a slap on the wrist sentence for free, and Amanda Knox wouldn't have gotten away with it! Too bad the case took place in Italy :boggled:
 
Vixen said:
No it isn't. It was a case of my typing fingers being on autopilot.
Click to expand...

So your brain directed your fingers to press the U and M keys but your fingers pressed O, U and S instead? You're seriously going to make this claim?

You do realize a typo is typically the result of pressing the wrong key or fat-fingering an additional key. The result is usually an incorrect spelling because a key adjacent to the intended key was pressed. There is no way you accidentally pressed OUS when you meant to press UM. Why oh why is it so difficult for you to simply admit you made an error?

So let me guess - "autonomous nervous system" was a typo as well? :o
 
Vixen said:
Well done. You spotted a typo. I am glad this brightened up your day. I will have to do it more often!
Click to expand...

Oh, you needn't bother. Pretty much everything you post here has errors of fact, logic or, wait for it, both kinds:D...don't raise the vapidity of your postings by adding (even) more typos to them.
 
TruthCalls said:
So your brain directed your fingers to press the U and M keys but your fingers pressed O, U and S instead? You're seriously going to make this claim?

You do realize a typo is typically the result of pressing the wrong key or fat-fingering an additional key. The result is usually an incorrect spelling because a key adjacent to the intended key was pressed. There is no way you accidentally pressed OUS when you meant to press UM. Why oh why is it so difficult for you to simply admit you made an error?

So let me guess - "autonomous nervous system" was a typo as well? :o
Click to expand...

Yep. Autonomous is a word used all the time so typed it without thinking.
 
Vixen said:
Well done. You spotted a typo. I am glad this brightened up your day. I will have to do it more often!
Click to expand...

That was no typo. That was ignorance.

Vixen said:
No it isn't. It was a case of my typing fingers being on autopilot.
Click to expand...

Autopilot typing is when you add or delete words or letters unintentionally or use homophones such as their, they're, there or your, you're or to, too, and two.

Vixen said:
People charter flights all the time.
Click to expand...

Sure. If your definition of a charter is a scheduled airline flying a regularly scheduled route with a load of unconnected paying passengers.
I know this is a complete waste of time, but hope springs eternal: do you have any evidence that British Airways 747 was 1) a charter, or 2) chartered by David Marriott? Pardon me for my skepticism but it's well founded.
 
The guilters' posts are "typed ... without {critical} thinking" and are fictions developed to support their invalid and generally nonsensical arguments.
 
Vixen said:
Yep. Autonomous is a word used all the time so typed it without thinking.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. "Autonomous" is right up there with "to, a, the, there, was, your and it's". If we go back and read all twenty-seven parts of this thread, I'm sure well find "autonomous" is quite common. However, I did a search for the word in Part 26. "Autonomous" showed up zero times. Another search for the word in Part 25 produced its use three times. All were within a legal document (excerpt from Allen v. the United Kingdom 25424/09 12/07/2013) presented by Numbers.

Next excuse, please.:rolleyes:
 
Stacyhs said:
Of course it is. "Autonomous" is right up there with "to, a, the, there, was, your and it's". If we go back and read all twenty-seven parts of this thread, I'm sure well find "autonomous" is quite common. However, I did a search for the word in Part 26. "Autonomous" showed up zero times. Another search for the word in Part 25 produced its use three times. All were within a legal document (excerpt from Allen v. the United Kingdom 25424/09 12/07/2013) presented by Numbers.

Next excuse, please.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you but I was once a paid up member of the British Psychological Society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom