• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
anglo, anglo, anglo. A sentence has to have a verb, e.g., "Cows is dumb."
Click to expand...
The verb was silent or implied.

I wouldn't. Their reasoning would be just as convoluted as the judges'. Everything is about the defense not having disproven the prosecution's case, instead of about the prosecution not having proven their own case.
Click to expand...
Reasoning? I'd sure like to see some.
 
Mary_H said:
I wouldn't. Their reasoning would be just as convoluted as the judges'. Everything is about the defense not having disproven the prosecution's case, instead of about the prosecution not having proven their own case.
Click to expand...

I've raised the question of police misconduct in readers' comment sections, and got the reply: "the police are not on trial." The reversal of the burden of proof seems to be a widely-held basis for views on judicial processes.
 
RandyN said:
Italians must be inherently dishonest...and or else massively stupid. The facts seem irrefutable. Dumb cows.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
You had me Randy, right up until the last two sentences. Then you rode the train right off the rails. There is nothing inherently stupid or dishonest about Italians. Are some individuals and the system stupid or dishonest? Absolutely, but the people as a whole are not.

They are trapped in a failed system without the mechanism to correct it. Too much power is entrusted to the judges, The system lacks the finality and the integrity to get it right. This much is true, but I will never paint the Italian people with a broad brush. They do need wholesale changes and should adopt more the English/US type of system. They need to end the automatic appeals,and the professional jurists and go to a jury system entirely made up lay people. Would this be perfect? Hardly, but it would be better.
Click to expand...
Moi aussi.

I've posted many times here that early 2000's Canadian study of wrongful convictions, a study which precedes the horrible Kercher murder, and if that was the only thing you ever read about the Canadian legal system, you'd want to avoid Canada like the plague.

It also answers the many questions that well meaning skeptics might ask, like, "You're implying that the whole system is corrupt, or that everyone is part of the conspiracy!"

These things very seldom work like a Don Brown mystery. It is usually one person up the chain trusting that the person below them on the chain has done their work right, and they sign off on it. Institutional loyalty and group think are powerful subtexts.... yes, even in Canada.

It's the very reason we have the safeguards of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a lawyer, and the right to have confessions videotaped.

Debra Milke in Arizona had her "confession" written down longhand by a cop, three days after she was supposed to have confessed it, and has ALWAYS denied she ever made it. Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Patrick Lumumba and Rudy Guede were all denied lawyers and videotaping at interrogation, and for some reason that bothers guilters not one whit.

If either of Sollecito OR Knox had had lawyers, as required by Italian law (unless we accept Machiavelli's legal definition of a "weak suspect" not requiring one) then none of us would know each other; the Kerchers would have had their answer in 2010 and would have been able to pick up the pieces of living and NO ONE would have ever heard of Amanda Knox.

The Italians may have a more damaged system than, say, Canada, but we could all start posting on the "Canada's justice system sucks!" website and find plenty to talk about.
 
acbytesla said:
Can't let a woman be right Anglo? After all, I was willing to acknowledge I failed math there. But apparently you failed in English 101. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

You are ALL English 101 pikers.....

Wikipedia said:
A sentence is a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that are grammatically linked. A sentence can include words grouped meaningfully to express a statement, question, exclamation, request, command or suggestion.

A sentence can also be defined in orthographic terms alone, i.e., as anything which is contained between a capital letter and a full stop.[2] For instance, the opening of Charles Dickens' novel Bleak House begins with the following three sentences:

London. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Implacable November weather.

The first sentence involves one word, a proper noun. The second sentence has only a non-finite verb. The third is a single nominal group. Only an orthographic definition encompasses this variation.
Click to expand...
 
Bill Williams said:
You are ALL English 101 pikers.....
Click to expand...

All I know Bill is that my English teacher would have taken points off my term papers for writing sentence fragments. Dickens gets away with it like Mark Twain gets away with bad spelling. It's kind of like when rich people are crazy. They don't say the rich guy is a loon, no they instead say he/she is eccentric.
 
Bill Williams said:
Is.
Click to expand...

Dictionary.com said:
In written dialogue sentence fragments are perfectly acceptable. They would generally be regarded as sentences simply because they begin with a capital letter and end with a suitable punctuation mark. But they are not sentences in a strict grammatical sense.
Click to expand...

Is and isn't. (That both was and wasn't a sentence).
 
Mary_H said:
"Dumb cows" isn't a sentence.

Hey, I am reading through the motivations more carefully and, yeah, they're crazy. It's actually frightening how crazy they are. If I don't find something that makes sense pretty soon, I may have to take back what I said about being in some agreement with Coulsdon (sorry, Coulsdon).
Click to expand...
Mary_H

For a few brief moments, alas it was not meant to be; I will of course bravely struggle with my sense of utter rejection!

Seriously though, your position is consistent with the majority of posters here which appears to be the trial next month will be nothing more than a show trial with a preordained guilty verdict.

As for the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere of the evidence I have never been able to reconcile posts going back as far as Candace Dempsey SeattlePI blog with what actually happened in court and that does include the tactics of both defence teams, I guess with the exception of the H & Z trial you might agree.

Enlight of the general view here of the forth coming trial it is interesting that people want to discuss the evidence.
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
Mary_H

For a few brief moments, alas it was not meant to be; I will of course bravely struggle with my sense of utter rejection!

Seriously though, your position is consistent with the majority of posters here which appears to be the trial next month will be nothing more than a show trial with a preordained guilty verdict.

As for the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere of the evidence I have never been able to reconcile posts going back as far as Candace Dempsey SeattlePI blog with what actually happened in court and that does include the tactics of both defence teams, I guess with the exception of the H & Z trial you might agree.

Enlight of the general view here of the forth coming trial it is interesting that people want to discuss the evidence.
Click to expand...

I'd love that your are right Coulsdon, but if you read that motivation, it is difficult to see how a court following their instructions could hold a fair trial.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Mary_H

For a few brief moments, alas it was not meant to be; I will of course bravely struggle with my sense of utter rejection!

Seriously though, your position is consistent with the majority of posters here which appears to be the trial next month will be nothing more than a show trial with a preordained guilty verdict.

As for the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere of the evidence I have never been able to reconcile posts going back as far as Candace Dempsey SeattlePI blog with what actually happened in court and that does include the tactics of both defence teams, I guess with the exception of the H & Z trial you might agree.

Enlight of the general view here of the forth coming trial it is interesting that people want to discuss the evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, the evidence is what you should use to form an opinion of guilt or innocence, not some sex game gone wrong fantasy the the Italian Supreme Court wants to believe. Do you believe that fantasy, Coulsdon UK?
 
RoseMontague said:
Well, the evidence is what you should use to form an opinion of guilt or innocence, not some sex game gone wrong fantasy the the Italian Supreme Court wants to believe. Do you believe that fantasy, Coulsdon UK?
Click to expand...

Hey Rose, Do you know why IA is down?
 
Antony said:
...... Just don't expect me to go easy on you when you make unsupportable assertions like, "the Hellman-Zanetti report was of a poor legal standard".
Click to expand...

he does talk utter ball-cocks, that "CoulsdonUK", doesn't he?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom