The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

[toto]

Continued from here. As usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous iteration of this thread.

Posted By: Agatha

It matters not a jot how intentional their usage. A judge does not have the authority to change a law.

Nowhere in Art 530,2 do the words 'did not commit the act' appear.

There is no way Marasca or you can wish it so.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cassazione-Dispositivo-30-March-2015.pdf

Della rubric per non a vere I ricorrenti commesso il fatto

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,
If there is insufficient evidence to convict, do you believe the correct conclusion is "they probably did it anyway it's just a bummer they didn't leave any evidence behind"?

In other words, do you think presumption of innocence is a bad thing? Does it get in the way of burning witches, err I mean locking the pagan she devil Amanda up in prison for life?

It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.

 

[Vixen]

Nice try in trying to turn this into an ad hominem aimed at me.

Fact is Sction 530.2 acquittals include acquittals when evidence is missing, and the phrase "did not commit the act" is quite appropriate to use when that kind of 530.2 Acquittal is found.

Quit trying to play lawyer.

It is simple logic.

 

[Mike1711]

You do not understand that a law cannot contradict itself. In so doing it becomes void.

A law cannot both say 'insufficient evidence' AND 'did not commit the act'. It would be a contradiction in terms.

Now do you understand?

Nonsense!!

Of course law can contradict itself.

Example - OJ Simpson "not guilty" in a criminal court and "guilty" in a civil court. Civil law and criminal law often contradict.

Do you want an example of criminal law contradicting itself? Look no closer than my own country South Africa and Nelson Mandela.

Do you think "insufficient evidence" and "did not commit the act" are mutually exclusive? They are not.

...but hey...you're the expert. Let's just say you are correct. The law cannot contradict itself? Think about the own goal you just scored in the AK/RS case....

The final verdict is "not guilty"
The previous verdicts were "guilty", "not guilty", "guilty" and finally "not guilty" (hint: I deliberately avoided the term "innocent" to pre-empt a likely obtuse response).
Now you say the law cannot contradict itself which means...?
...all previous verdicts are trumped because the law cannot contradict itself.

At last we agree

 

[Vixen]

Nonsense!!

Of course law can contradict itself.

Example - OJ Simpson "not guilty" in a criminal court and "guilty" in a civil court. Civil law and criminal law often contradict.

Do you want an example of criminal law contradicting itself? Look no closer than my own country South Africa and Nelson Mandela.

Do you think "insufficient evidence" and "did not commit the act" are mutually exclusive? They are not.

...but hey...you're the expert. Let's just say you are correct. The law cannot contradict itself? Think about the own goal you just scored in the AK/RS case....

The final verdict is "not guilty"
The previous verdicts were "guilty", "not guilty", "guilty" and finally "not guilty".
Now you say the law cannot contradict itself which means...?
...all previous verdicts are trumped because the law cannot contradict itself.

At last we agree

Your example has nothing to do with contradiction.

A criminal court requires proof 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' (and as decided by a jury or tribunal of judges equivalent).

A civil court only requires a probability of 51% to 49% for you to win your case.

It is a fact of contract law (and law is all about contracts of one sort or another) that if you have just one clause that contradicts another, the entire contract is repudiated (=worthless).

 

[Mike1711]

Not really, because Judges are not free to interpret the law in Italy. They have to learn the CPP off by heart and stick to it, to the letter.

Law is often about interpretation.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.

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?

 

[Bill Williams]

It is simple logic.

Huh!? This response is meaningless.

 

[Mike1711]

Your example has nothing to do with contradiction.

A criminal court requires proof 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' (and as decided by a jury or tribunal of judges equivalent).

A civil court only requires a probability of 51% to 49% for you to win your case.

It is a fact of contract law (and law is all about contracts of one sort or another) that if you have just one clause that contradicts another, the entire contract is repudiated (=worthless).

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???...

 

[LondonJohn]

Aaaaaaaaand we're back! How good

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).

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Do watch the video - I believe you yourself provided the link - I don't see Pringle or Jacobs correcting the hostess about the false claims.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and watch it. Nowhere does the hostess...or anyone... say that Pringle was on death row for 15 years. What she did say was that Sunny and Peter had spent 15 years or more in prison...not on death row. You don't see them correcting her because she didn't say it.

You claimed Pringle said he was on death row for 15 years. I asked you to quote him and give a citation for this. You failed to do so and instead moved the goalpost to saying he didn't correct the hostess...for something she didn't do in the first place. I suggest you put that goalpost on wheels considering the amount of moving it's getting.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen wrote:

As Grinder patiently tried to tell you, over and over again, 'did not commit the act' was merely a template error. IOW the clerk writing up the MR used a template and omitted to scrub out the erroneous phrase.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11936331#post11936331

I certainly have no recollection of that. Would you like to provide evidence that Grinder ever said any such thing to me? I'll be waiting but I won't be holding my breath.

To declare this is a template and that the clerk failed to erase the phrase is ludicrous and unsupported by any evidence. Quelle surprise. Of course, if this were true, an amended report would be submitted with this being a legal document and all I'd think. Care to provide it?

 

[Welshman]

Aaaaaaaaand we're back! How good

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).

To argue that there must be a valid case for guilt simply because courts have found someone guilty is not valid. There have been other cases in the UK when innocent people have been found guilty and the appeal courts initially turned down appeals. The Birmingham Six is an example. Courts may decide someone is guilty even if there are major problems with the prosecution’s case and the evidence suggests innocence.

The evidence suggests the Massei and Nencini courts were kangaroo courts. The Chieffi court ordered Nencini to find Amanda and Raffaele guilty. As the links below show the arguments used by Massei and Nencini were ridiculous and scientifically illiterate. If there was a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele why did the motivation reports have to resort to using stupid arguments?

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=368

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=366&p=3009#p3009

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/nencini-report-dissection-conviction/

Nencini’s report was full of falsehoods as detailed below. Why did Nencini have to resort to falsehoods if there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele? Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies. I have pointed out that PGP have displayed disgusting hypocrisy in attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying because they have lied themselves and condoned and ignored the lies of others on an industrial scale. The support for Nencini is another example of this. PGP defend a judge who convicted Amanda and Raffaele on the basis of a motivation report full of lies.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3011

The fact the prosecution had to resort to the tactics below and Vixen constantly has to resort to falsehoods in her posts makes it clear the prosecution had a weak case, a lack of evidence and the facts did not support the prosecution’s case. In view of this it is not valid to argue the courts must have found Amanda and Raffaele guilty because there was a strong case and a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

 

[Samson]

It is simple logic.

If p then q
If not p then q
If p then not q
If not p then not q

That is simple logic.

 

[Samson]

For example.
If I am bald I am a man.
If I am not bald then I am a woman.
If I am bald then I am not a woman.
If I am not bald then I am not a woman.

Sorry to digress into simple logic.

 

[TruthCalls]

It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.

And one merits court decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Not Guilty'. Why is it you always leave this out. It can't be because Cheffi annulled Hellmann since Marasca annulled Nencini yet you reference Nencini all the time. Hmmm...

 

[TruthCalls]

For example.
If I am bald I am a man.
If I am not bald then I am a woman.
If I am bald then I am not a woman.
If I am not bald then I am not a woman.

Sorry to digress into simple logic.

Lt Ilia was bald... your logic is flawed.

 

[Stacyhs]

And one merits court decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Not Guilty'. Why is it you always leave this out. It can't be because Cheffi annulled Hellmann since Marasca annulled Nencini yet you reference Nencini all the time. Hmmm...

That was a template error. The court clerk simply forgot to remove the "Acquits" and "for not having committed the act" parts. It must have been the same incompetent clerk who wrote up the Marasca/Bruno report.

 

[Bill Williams]

Canadian wrongful conviction study 2007

As Amanda Knox said last night in L.A. to the Westside Bar Association, it's not as if the dynamics of wrongful convictions are not well known. They are - Saul Kassin's work on false confessions is one aspect of what is well known.

So for one last time, here's a link to a 2007 Canadian wrongful conviction study which highlighted the common themes in most, if not all of them. This study was done before anyone had heard of Mignini and the injustice in Perugia.

http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/files/article_attachments/Wrongful_Convictions_in_Canada.pdf

Briefly:

- multiple acts of misconduct by multiple authorities in "the system"
- conduct of the police
- conduct of prosecutors, judges, and forensic scientists
- conduct of defence lawyers
- tunnel vision surrounding an early theory
- mistaken eyewitness identification
- false confessions
- use of in-custody informers
- public pressure to convict
- intense media coverage​

Remember this report is from 2007. The report which is at the link references Canadian Inquiries from 1989 to 2007 which are said to be some of the most comprehensive in the world, as well as the common themes found in those 18 years.

Canada’s public inquiry process has been cited repeatedly
by American legislators, scholars and jurists as being worthy of adoption in the United States.

A wrongful conviction conference that took place at Harvard University in April 2002 included,
“at almost every panel, someone [rising] to point to the Canadian experience as a model for US
reform”. At the same time, scholars such as Professor Keith Findley caution that states such as
the US could avoid “mustering the fortitude to engage in the type of painful (and expensive)
individual-case self-scrutiny the Canadians have undertaken in [their public] inquiries” by
forming study commissions to scrutinize the failings of a justice system as a whole rather than
awaiting high profile exonerations in an individual case.​

So, rather than reinventing the wheel in concert only with each high-profile wrongful conviction, the following are some of the (common) recommendations coming out of each individual, Canadian Royal Commission:

- police training include race relations
- that court services include on-call language interpreters
- undue reliance on forensic experts, when other more relevant forensics is missing
- examining and identifying (early) flawed and inadequate police investigations
- mandatory videotaping of all police interviews with suspects
- mandatory training for police and prosecutors on "tunnel vision"
- permanent storage of evidence and police notebooks
- independent review of claims of wrongful conviction
- inadequate disclosure of evidence by prosecutors​

Anyway, no need to summarize the whole paper here.

The point being, it's not as if identifying wrongful convictions is rocket science. At some point all it takes is an authority in the system showing that the king has no clothes.

 

[Stacyhs]

As Amanda Knox said last night in L.A. to the Westside Bar Association, it's not as if the dynamics of wrongful convictions are not well known. They are - Saul Kassin's work on false confessions is one aspect of what is well known.

So for one last time, here's a link to a 2007 Canadian wrongful conviction study which highlighted the common themes in most, if not all of them. This study was done before anyone had heard of Mignini and the injustice in Perugia.

http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/files/article_attachments/Wrongful_Convictions_in_Canada.pdf

Briefly:

- multiple acts of misconduct by multiple authorities in "the system"
- conduct of the police
- conduct of prosecutors, judges, and forensic scientists
- conduct of defence lawyers
- tunnel vision surrounding an early theory
- mistaken eyewitness identification
- false confessions
- use of in-custody informers
- public pressure to convict
- intense media coverage​

Remember this report is from 2007. The report which is at the link references Canadian Inquiries from 1989 to 2007 which are said to be some of the most comprehensive in the world, as well as the common themes found in those 18 years.

​

So, rather than reinventing the wheel in concert only with each high-profile wrongful conviction, the following are some of the (common) recommendations coming out of each individual, Canadian Royal Commission:

- police training include race relations
- that court services include on-call language interpreters
- undue reliance on forensic experts, when other more relevant forensics is missing
- examining and identifying (early) flawed and inadequate police investigations
- mandatory videotaping of all police interviews with suspects
- mandatory training for police and prosecutors on "tunnel vision"
- permanent storage of evidence and police notebooks
- independent review of claims of wrongful conviction
- inadequate disclosure of evidence by prosecutors​

Anyway, no need to summarize the whole paper here.

The point being, it's not as if identifying wrongful convictions is rocket science. At some point all it takes is an authority in the system showing that the king has no clothes.

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.