• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Strozzi said:
Yes, that bra clasp. The clasp that can't be examined by anyone again because Dr. Stefanoni immersed the cloth and metal item in liquid as a way to preserve and protect it.
Click to expand...

Yes. And Jamone is better than prosciutto.
 
Machiavelli said:
You are making up stuff. You have no clue what the Supreme Court rules about. You have no experience about SC rulings and you don't know even know what "point of law" means.
I explained something about what the SC rules about in the past, and I proved myself right on every point of law (with supreme horror of LJ who always stubbornly refused to acknowledge reality and insisted in condescendignly "schooling" me about, well about his envisioning of how the Supreme Court was, without reading a line of jurisprudence from it).
I think you also have little clue about what a prosecutor is in Italy (possibly even of what God is in Italy). You don't know anything about how the judiciary works, nor about what politics is in Italy; but above all, as I said you seem to not know the basics of Cassazione rulings, related laws, relation to evidence, etc.
Click to expand...

People have read the motivation report and they were not impressed. People already know that the italian judicial system is sick and in need of reform. People already know that it produces absolutely dismal decisions.

It's incredible how they managed to convict people who proved their inoccence BARD, today. Did they even listen to the defense arguments?
 
divergent translations

LashL said:
This verdict is, frankly, perverse. It is also unconscionable and, sadly, it was not at all unexpected. Utterly shameful.
Click to expand...
LashL,

I agree. Would you care to comment on the two translations of a key passage in the Court of Supreme Cassation's motivations document? I was surprised by one of your comments about the two translations. Links to previous comments here and here.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
You are making up stuff. You have no clue what the Supreme Court rules about. You have no experience about SC rulings and you don't know even know what "point of law" means.
I explained something about what the SC rules about in the past, and I proved myself right on every point of law (with supreme horror of LJ who always stubbornly refused to acknowledge reality and insisted in condescendignly "schooling" me about, well about his envisioning of how the Supreme Court was, without reading a line of jurisprudence from it).
I think you also have little clue about what a prosecutor is in Italy (possibly even of what God is in Italy). You don't know anything about how the judiciary works, nor about what politics is in Italy; but above all, as I said you seem to not know the basics of Cassazione rulings, related laws, relation to evidence, etc.
Click to expand...

You don't name the pigs you plan to eat. :p
 
RandyN said:
No it was the CIA ...get your facts straight. Saddam was a Bush thing. He got killed by W because Saddam made his daddy look like a fool and caused him to lose the election to a second term...almost impossible in USA nowadays. Also Cheney need a boost in his Haliburton stock holdings so going after Saddam only made sense...well Bush sense....
Click to expand...

So, le'ts get the facts straight. Newsweek polls were on the question:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

So in 2007 50% of US citizens still either believed Saddam played a role (41%) or thought it's possible, maybe yes (9%).

"Saddam was a Bush thing": you perefectly know this made sense only as history, if referred a past political era, that was until the nineties, before Clinton; nothing to do with the time of the polls, and we are not even talking about the same Bush.
 
Machiavelli said:
Acbytesla, the ruling doesn't say that. This seems to me a bit hysterical.
Click to expand...

He's right, tesla. It's not just any old pedophile who is allowed to rape children. Only those pedophiles who profess "true love" are allowed rape kids. The other ones are still criminals.
 
Machiavelli said:
So, le'ts get the facts straight. Newsweek polls were on the question:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

So in 2007 50% of US citizens still either believed Saddam played a role (41%) or thought it's possible, maybe yes (9%).

"Saddam was a Bush thing": you perefectly know this made sense only as history, if referred a past political era, that was until the nineties, before Clinton; nothing to do with the time of the polls, and we are not even talking about the same Bush.
Click to expand...

Who cares. Saddam is dead and so bin laden.
 
Machiavelli said:
Acbytesla, the ruling doesn't say that. This seems to me a bit hysterical.
Click to expand...

Really, it didn't reverse an earlier court decision convicting a 60 year old Pietro Lamberti of having sex with an 11 year old because the initial rulings did not take into account the "amorous relationship" ?

Seriously Machiavelli? You're going to defend this scumbag and this decision?

You think it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old?

<snip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diocletus said:
"Complex"? I think the proper word is "Byzantine".

But actually, it's only Italian process that is complex/Byzantine.

Italian evidentiary and substantive law is actually symplistic and underdeveloped. You know--primitive.
Click to expand...

No. "Evidentiary law" is not primitive, "evidentiary law" does not exist in the Italian system.
Substantive law is complex as much as procedure law.
Evidence in civil right system is process, can't exist outside the process and can't have an own regulation.
 
Machiavelli said:
No. "Evidentiary law" is not primitive, "evidentiary law" does not exist in the Italian system.
Substantive law is complex as much as procedure law.
Evidence in civil right system is process, can't exist outside the process and can't have an own regulation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe you're right. I should have said that Italian evidentiary law is nonexistent. Clowns.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, it was one of the reasons the ISC gave for overturning Hellmann. If it features at all prominently in the motivations report of the present court, it could be a very strong legal point. I'm thinking as much for the ECHR as extradition, because Raffaele has no extradition barrier to save him. And as a man, I can't help feel that he's in for a worse time in jail anyway, if it comes to that.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I'm losing interest in the ignorant Italian courts. The ISC was where it started going backwards, now Nencini the puppet judge who had nothing but the RiS work; that was a little interesting. Science wasn't important so the RiS only got a small part in the show, Nencini had strict orders to follow so he knew the verdict would be over today. (a video recording of the deliberation room would be interesting.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9801559#post9801559

Nencini rubber stamps ISC's verdict. (Incredibly Stupid Court report now will include a "poop motive"?).

I wont be reading this next report, because its already written by the ISC, only a fool would not see the political motive.

It was a Florentine court that had Frank Sfarzo's web site taken down, after all.
 
sharing the electronic data files

In part 2 (p. 648) of his three-part textbook Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology, John Butler wrote in response to the question, "Is it a problem to share electronic data files with the defense? We see no problem providing electronic data files to the defense since any changes to the inherent data would be detectable by the crime lab forensic scientist. We have seen instances of some defense experts manipulating the appearance of the data by changing various parameters. However, with the aid of a forensic scientist, a prosecutor will be able to immediately recognize what was done and cross-examine the witness regarding the motive for the changes." Of course, if a defense expert can change the appearance of data by the choice of parameters, then so can the forensic lab where the work was originally done.
 
acbytesla said:
Really, it didn't reverse an earlier court decision convicting a 60 year old Pietro Lamberti of having sex with an 11 year old because the initial rulings did not take into account the "amorous relationship" ?
Click to expand...

No.
It didn't.
It annulled it on some grounds - not "reverse", but "annull" - and ordered he should be sentenced again - not found innocent, but found guilty and sentenced. However, his sentencing should be re-calculated because he had a right to a mitigating factor which the court failed to acknowledge.

Seriously Machiavelli? You're going to defend this scumbag and this decision?
Click to expand...

The decision is just legal. First, I point out that your claim is false: the decision does not say that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old, and if you say that you are repeating a falsehood without getting informed, which is a kind of telling a lie.
Second, the decision is not only legal but also has some principles of common sense fairness in it due to the principle of proportion, because justice is not something made of "good" and "bad" things, it is based on a principle of proportionality. I knew of a man who killed a 10yo child because driving on cocaine didn't stop at zebra crossing, the man got four years for manslaughter. The paedophile sleeping with a 11yo who did not not appear traumatized got 5 years. That may be a not entirely correct proportion. The point is that you need to put things in comparison within the system.
 
acbytesla said:
I considered that, but then I read their motivations and decisions and I have come to the conclusion that they are morons.

Enough said?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you stopped laughing long enough to type that. I had to read part of those motivations the other day and I'm still giggling. Clown show.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom