641 users online (78 members and 563 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    No, it is fine for them to talk to the media, even though under Italian law that is forbidden at this time. What is wrong is saying the jury was running around watching tv shows, etc and bringing that info into the deliberations room. That would be immediate grounds for a mistrial in a us court.



    It is also not right to comment on RS not being subject to cross examination.



    Not matter how one feels about the case, you should always be able to find fault or criticize something supporting your side. Those believing in her guilt seems never to find fault with anything, ever. One could still believe strongly in her guilt yet find some things inappropriate just as I could believe in her innocence yet still say she could have had a better demeanor

    I don't expect the rules to be the same in every other country.

    The reason IMO that US jurors can't watch television or read news reports about the case they're deciding is because US courts often exclude huge amounts of evidence that's damning to the defendant.
    Personally, I'm of the mindset, it should all be let in and let the chips fall where they may.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Nosy by Nature and a Websleuther by choice

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Thank you for this quote. I don't think that sounds prejudice against him at all, it's simply stating the obvious. I seem to remember Nencini in court one day saying something about the prosecutor never questioning RS. Anyone else remember that?

  3. #18
    BetteDavisEyes's Avatar
    BetteDavisEyes is offline "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    22,147
    Italy to investigate Amanda Knox judge over 'not appropriate' comments to media

    By Claudio Lavanga and Alexander Smith, NBC News

    Italy's justice department said Tuesday it was investigating comments by one of the judges who reinstated the murder conviction for Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

    Florence judge Alessandro Nencini told two newspapers on Saturday that he agreed with the guilty verdict and said it was difficult to reach because of the amount of evidence and media coverage of the case...

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...cid=hero_media

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    Thank you for this quote. I don't think that sounds prejudice against him at all, it's simply stating the obvious. I seem to remember Nencini in court one day saying something about the prosecutor never questioning RS. Anyone else remember that?
    I didn't think it sounded prejudice either. In fact it was in the context of him feeling sad for having to find them guilty, but the evidence proved they were.

    I can't believe they could blame the prosecution though. I would think it would be the fault of the defense for not having him state his case more openly. They have had three shots at it and now they want to complain?
    All posts are my opinion only unless otherwise stated.
    Thanks!!

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,665
    The politics behind the Nencini row.
    http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_fe...knox-appeal-2/

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    And to make it even worse apparently the judge now says too that the jury watched the news every night and they commented why the evidence they were seeing was not like they were seeing in the news. Who knows what kind of nancy grace type programming they were watching!

    This whole case is just a mess....say what to will about their guilt but this circus did not give them a fair trial... Juries should not be watching biased tv coverage and judges should not be commenting on defense strategy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-verdict.html


    Of course the entire AK et al investigation and trials in Italy can be characterized as a "circus". From the vantage point of an interested citizen living in the USA , merely watching US TV and reading US media reporting
    (which I think has been breathtakingly abysmal), a conclusion of a "miscarriage of justice" might be arrived at.
    If one were to assume a different perspective and focus only on the factual content of the investigation - forensics, police reports,interrogation material, photos, interviews etc AND filter out media sensationalism, a different conclusion can be cogently held.

    Over the past 3 plus years, the US press has had a field day trashing the Italian judicial system. This was jingoistic reporting. The AK PR machine was in top speed gear obfuscating facts and introducing confusion to AK's advantage.

    I am of the opinion that the Massei (sic)Report -397 pages - would be an excellent starting point in order to understand this crime. Once this text is fully absorbed, one can comfortably work backwards or forwards in order to rely on OR discredit contrary assertions or "facts".

    Two courts - (The Italian judicial system is very different from the American system of jurisprudence) - arrived at similar conclusions. Their conclusions appear thoughtful and sound despite the numerous sideshow distractions.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    The politics behind the Nencini row.
    http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_fe...knox-appeal-2/
    While I too wish Nencini hadn't given an interview, thank you for this link. Seeing the entire interview and his answers is nice. Also seeing the politics behind it is much needed and makes things a little more clear.

    His answers are reasonable and I don't think they prove any bias. Many times he says that will be addressed in the reasoning. Some of the questions seem like a setup of sorts. One would think a judge with this kind of experience would know what is unacceptable and acceptable to say. I'll definitely be watching for what comes of this.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906

    Judge Alessandro Nencini's comments

    Wrong thread...moved
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Nosy by Nature and a Websleuther by choice

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Hellman too said somethings he shouldn't have IMO days after the verdict. Again no issues were raised because his verdict was in favor of defendants. Should've been considered unacceptable too though IMO

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...2_knox09m.html

    Even Judge Hellman scrambled to defend his decision, granting an interview to Italian journalists Wednesday. The Seattle Times has obtained an audio transcript of his surprisingly frank remarks, which reverberated through Italy's national papers Thursday.

    "Certainly Rudy Guede knows, but he hasn't said," Hellman said. "And maybe the two defendants know, too, because our decision to find not guilty is the result of the truth created within the context of the trial, but the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but there is no proof. So maybe they know too, but we don't have anything to go on."

    "Normal kids"

    He expressed sympathy for the Kerchers, but noted he felt a responsibility toward the living, in this case, "two kids, little more than 20 years old."

    "It's not that I was able to get into the psyche of those two, my impressions were based on the images I saw and a few words they spoke but they seemed normal kids, as normal as many today, well behaved, composed, tested and forged and matured by this experience. That's all."

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Harmony2 View Post
    I moved this informative post here... thanks SMK
    Thank you - and thanks for this thread ! Just found it right now


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952

    Moving this forward from Knox Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    They can comment, but I think he should have waited. I think Judge Perry, Casey's judge, didn't speak out until this past fall sometime, IIRC? In Nencini's case, he did it the day after!
    It is infuriating and inexplicable.

    This Nencini predicament is horrible, and was utterly avoidable.

    Not only is the verdict in jeopardy, but he has given a massive boost to defense appeals, when his ruling would have sailed through the Supreme Court.

    I believe this is so serious that we should have a thread opened to follow the Nencini affair, as all hinges on this.

    Look at this:


    ..."Four members of Italy's center-right political party, Forza Italia, have called into question Judge Nencini's ability to render unbiased judgments. The four - Nicolo Zanon, Alberto Albertoni, Filiberto Palumbo, Bartolomeo Romano - have asked a judicial oversight body to investigate "a serious lack of impartiality" by Nencini in the Kercher case.

    One Italian publication described "clouds are gathering" over Nencini. The most serious lightning bolt in those "clouds" could be Italy's Justice Minister Annamaria Cancellieri. She has begun a preliminary inquiry into Judge Nencini's behavior in the Kercher case vis--vis Italy's code of ethics. It has left, what one Italian commentator calls, "a sinister picture of the Italian justice system."

    Judge Nencini's predicament isn't helped by the fact the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France has raised questions about the impartiality of Italian justices. Being a member of the European Union, Italy has ceded final authority over its judicial proceedings to the Court of Human Rights. It can throw out any Italian judge's ruling.

    So what did Judge Nencini do that got him in so much hot water?

    He broke character. By his own estimate, the Judge had not given an interview to the media in 30 years.
    ..."
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/italian-...e-for-remarks/

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    Thanks. So it wasn't even a real interview. Just a journalist 'misunderstanding' his words. Much to do about nothing IMO.
    What worries me is that the journalists may have "set him up" to bring down the verdict. He has political enemies as well.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    It is symptomatic of the corruption of the Italian judicial system. As the enforcers and arbitrators of the law they feel they are above the law and that the rules don't apply to them. You see this attitude all the way from the investigators to the prosecutors to the judges. They break the rules and the people who are supposed to censure them ignore it, so they get away with it. as the saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Legal process under the Napoleonic codes used in most of Europe are similar to the US, but differ in a very fundamental way: the presumption of innocence. This is a very important distinction, that will not affect the outcome of a trial process if everything is done properly, but will if the judicial system itself is corrupt, and I will explain why.

    Under most European systems the investigators gather evidence and a prosecutor decides if it should go to trial or not. On the face of it that might appear similar to what happens in America, BUT the defendant is expect to prove that the prosecutor is wrong, in other words they have to prove their innocence. This is a much higher bar to achieve since proving a negative is inherently more difficult to do. In America the prosecutor is supposed to prove that their charge is right.

    The European systems rely on the investigators and prosecutors being impartial and objective. The presumption then is that the evidence they produce is correct, and the defence has to prove that it is not. If they fail, they are judged guilty. The problems arise when the investigators and/or prosecutors are not impartial and evaluate evidence subjectively instead of objectively. Then you get a situation where they form a theory and produce evidence to support that theory, ignoring anything else. And if that happens, the chances are very good that you are going to jail irrespective if you are innocent or not, since you will not have the tools to defend yourself.

    In a corrupt system what will typically happen is that tests will be done selectively or without controls, interpretation of the results will be selective and incomplete, evidence that contradicts the theory will be ignored or not tested, rules regarding evidence collection and suspect interviews will not be followed etc, etc. All the sorts of shenanigans we have seen going on in the Knox trial. And when all of that gets to trial, because of the presumption of guilt and correctness of the evidence, there is very likely to be a conviction no matter what the defence does. They can't contest the evidence properly because the information that should have been gathered is not complete, or was not gathered at all, and consequently it is very hard to challenge the prosecution.

    In essence, in Italy once a prosecutor decides to charge you, you are probably going to jail. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it.

    In American courts the presumption of innocence acts as a shield. It effectively requires the prosecutors to have all the T's crossed and I's dotted BEFORE they present evidence to court, or it will not be admissible. Evidence that is incorrectly collected or analysed will get thrown out because it is unreliable and compromised. The prosecutor is required to prove their case, rather than just present it and get a conviction unless the defence can prove they are wrong.

    In the Knox trial we have seen the investigators form a theory right from the start, then go about collecting evidence to support their theory. The initial prosecutor bought into that theory immediately and embellished it considerably. The checks and balances that are supposed to be in the system in the form of an impartial and objective prosecutor were completely absent. So, when it went to trial a conviction became a virtual certainty because the whole process had failed in the investigation stage at a fundamental level.

    This happens a lot in Italy because they tend not to censure wrongdoing at lower levels when it happens, and after it gets to trial everything is so messed up that there is a high probability of a wrongful conviction,

    This can and does happen in the US (quite frequently in fact - all police and prosecutors are human and have human failings like everyone else), but with the important distinction that the shield provided by the presumption of innocence filters out most of the corrupt cases during trial. If you have a bad judge presiding over the trial, a corrupt case can still make it through the system to a conviction, but egregious cases (such as the Knox trial) are relatively rare in the US. Although they do on occasion happen of course.

    When considering the Italian judicial system, it is critical that everything is done properly and according to rules of law before the trial starts for justice to be done. If it is all messed up before you get to trial, then it is corrupt and impossible to do justice under their system.



    Dear Sir:

    Your essay above is well written but I am inclined to believe very few of your conclusions.

    1. You seem to be an authority on the Italian indeed the European legal system. Please state your credentials. Many assertions have been made. Many if not most of the assertions above need to be challenged. It would be helpful for you to cite literature or other types of proof for your argument.

    2. Your initial position is that the Italian system is "inherently corrupt". As a matter of first principles I doubt this sweeping claim. I will grant the Italian system is "flawed" or susceptible to error - as would be any legal system in practice.

    3. Without being expert on the Napoleonic System of jurisprudence I would "assume" that its capacity to arrive at "justice" is equivalent to the Anglo American system of common law. I would gladly read an argument or book expressing the contrary but I certainly will NOT rely on your personal assertions.

    4. For example this sweeping statement "They break the rules and the people who are supposed to censure them ignore it, so they get away with it. as the saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
    is simply silly.

    5 If the burden of proof is partitioned to the accused the boundry condition of "reasonable doubt" needed to arrive at a verdict may be quite different than when the burden is shifted to the "state". In any case it is quite possible that an experiment conducted where the facts of a case are run through the US system and concurrently through an Italian European system the end verdict, will - I would wager - be statistically equivalent. Thus there is truth in the saying "there are many ways to skin a cat". Does the legal analytical process needed to arrive at the "truth" of an indictment matter so long as the end verdict is for the most part correct and "just" (assuming protections of civil individual rights).
    As an aside, medieval methods of adjudication included torture. Torture or threat of torture would certainly encourage early facile confessions.

    6 Analysis of crime scene. Facts and findings can always be disputed as to meaning. It depends on the initial theory of the crime. All crime investigators eventually must construct a theory of crime in order to make the myriad of findings intelligible. All human beings conjure theories of reality in order to make sense of their experiened "world".
    A theory of crime should represent a 'null hypothesis" to be discarded or accepted. This is the center of the scientific method. As "evidence" is collected it MUST be interrpreted as counting for, against, or irrelevant to the question at hand. In this process there is always room for error and sometimes serious error is "inadvertantly" committed. Scientific progress and history of science are littered with bad thinking and errant ratiocination. In the instance of a crime theory - called "A". Experienced seasoned investigators often will get a "sense" of what happened. When you investigate hundreds of homicides you retain of a catalogue of MOs and motives. The initial "hunches" often turn out to be correct. For example - the spouse did it despite protestations to the contrary. BUT certain kinds of evidence may debunk the working hypothesis A. Then a secondary hypothesis is formulated which will intelligently and methodically guide the inquiry. It is a matter of judgment to know that the evidence at hand is sufficient to conclude who is guilty or not guilty.
    Barring an open confession, multiple eyewitness accounts or a video clip of the the crime, many homicides are problematic and the "verdict" judgment will rely on the "state's theory of culpibility" which is nothing more than a "story" filled with connect the dots circumstances. Nothing wrong with that because that is the best the "system" has to deal with the problem. For the most part (but not always- like in science laboratories) the process of investigation, forensic analysis, interviews will garner sufficient "information" qua "facts" to permit a judgment of guilt or not guilty. In the US criminal court system the benefit of doubt is assigned to the defendant. Due to the overwhelming resources available to the state the state bears the proof burden.
    Without getting into a tit for tat comparison of US common law vs Napoleonic Code facts in Italy are gathered according to forensic standards. Based on the Massei Opinion the AK and RS expert opinions were taken into consideration. The defendant attacks regarding shoddy analysis and DNA analysis were duly noted. AND after all was said and done a judgment was rendered. The reasoning in this opinion seemed to me quite sound.
    A great deal was made of the dearth of AK and RS DNA at the Kercher crime scene. Okay. Maybe. But granted.
    Those attacks on the reliability of forensic evidence do not completely debunk the verdict outcome. In scientific inquiry a lot of evidence is ambiguous and of questionable relevance. Nevertheless one takes the best guess estimate and moves on "as if" you have deduced correctly. The original prevailing theory that is finally accepted STILL remains tentative until it can be FALSIFIED. Falsification can be difficult if the dominant paradigm is religiously guarded. See Kuhn and Structure Scientific Revolutions.

    7 Improper conduct of the "scientific method" -
    ""Then you get a situation where they form a theory and produce evidence to support that theory, ignoring anything else. And if that happens, the chances are very good that you are going to jail irrespective if you are innocent or not, since you will not have the tools to defend yourself"

    All crime scene analysis and deliberation require by necessity a working hypothesis i.e. "theory". An investigator does NOT "produce evidence". Here it is implied the prosecution "manufactured or fabricated" evidence. I know of no "evidence" that facts or assertions were "manufactured" in the AK trial. Behaviors and observations were noted and "interpreted" as is necessary of all sensory input. The interpretation imputed to a behavior can be false, true,ambiguous, or misleading.
    Example: The amorous giggling of AK and RS during the Kercher body discovery. The AK lobby regards this as normal immature reactions of a young person in shock. The other acquaintances of Kercher did not behave this way nor would most innocent people who come upon a grisly murder in their household. The "belle indifference" can be interepreted as a deliberate ploy to throw off the scent of suspicion. This observational point by itself is not apposite. But placed in an array of behaviors and data this behavior can be counted toward affirming the theory A.
    I am unaware of purported critical information/ facts that were deliberatedly discarded by the Italian police/ courts.
    For example - the kind of information that would be welcome and would serve to absolve AK and RS from the accusation of murder would be this:

    A person - maybe heroin addict -who saw them at a distant disco around 10PM - 1AM Nov 1.
    Activity on RS computer between 10PM and 1AM Nov 1.
    A phone call to or from RS AK between the same time.
    Cell phone activity of RS and AK that places them far away from the crime scene.
    A valid alibi that can be confirmed placing AK or RS not at the Kercher murder scene.

    Aside from this sort of peripheral information I am unaware of other significant exculpating "evidence" that was inappropriately discarded by the Italian state. I am aware of a platoon of paid experts that lambasted the "scientific evidence" gathered at the murder scene. Indeed the resources commited and money paid by the AK and RS machines would match any state supported effort to the contrary. If AK/ RS were convicted the reason is NOT that the suspects had insufficient resources to match the overbearing evil state.

    8 Italian criminal investigations and reasoning process guided by their criminal codes.
    ""The presumption then is that the evidence they produce is correct, and the defence has to prove that it is not. If they fail, they are judged guilty"

    I simply do not know what the reasoning protocols are that the Italian police and criminal courts assume as they approach a "crime". It is reasonable that the police investigators attempt to construct a crime hypothesis that will match their collected evidence. They must create some type of "story" that may or may not comport with "historical reality".
    The idea of prosecution and defense colliding in their deliberation of what constitutes "evidence" vs what is spurious irrelevant or misleading undergirds the notion that after a process of elongated "pro" vs "contra" debate - the judges and jury will somehow arrive at the "Truth"; that is, after they retire and deliberate the merits of both arguments. Two courts, after ALL WAS SAID AND DONE, found sufficient reason to hold AK and RS responsible for murder. Based on what I have seen and read from 2007 to present I think the Italian courts arrived at the CORRECT judgment - regardless if they were operating under the Napoleonic Code of analysis. I also think that most if not all American courts would also find AK and RS guilty. Many courts have found murderers guilty on far LESS circumstantial evidence. Take the case of Drew Peterson. No body, no murder weapon, no DNA. Did Drew Peterson "off" his former wives. No doubt in my mind he is guilty.


    9 Italian rush to judgment
    "you are going to jail irrespective if you are innocent or not, since you will not have the tools to defend yourself."
    While this assertion might be true for some Italians accused of crimes (And due to their lack of resources such unfortunate miscreants were improperly condemned to jail) this is CERTAINLY not the case of AK and RS. I would like to see the AK defense dispursement accounting i.e. what was paid out for experts both in Italy and the US that assisted her defense. In this regard I am mindful of the infamous Staircase Murder ie Staircase Documentary and Michael Peterson. Peterson spent nearly a million dollars defending himself but was "correctly" found guilty of muder despite the "owl did it" theory asserted in his defense. The parents of Jon Benet Ramsey managed to buy their way out of a murder conviction as did OJ Simpson. Amanda Knox will join this pantheon of murderers who spent millions on defense but did not get what was bargained for.

    10 Are you serious????
    "And when all of that gets to trial, because of the presumption of guilt and correctness of the evidence, there is very likely to be a conviction no matter what the defence does. They can't contest the evidence properly because the information that should have been gathered is not complete, or was not gathered at all, and consequently it is very hard to challenge the prosecution."
    Hard to challenge the prosecution???? Seriously??
    AK and for all I know RS -backed up by rich parents and AK riding a huge PR machine threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Italian courts. She had at least 2 or 3 crime jouralists, a mulititude of Italian and US experts on her daddy's payroll, a number of network broadcasters who portrayed AK as being hounded and impaled by a "corrupt meglomaniacal Italian police system". This of course makes for salacious reading, enhanced popularity, and increased ratings but it is poor journalism.
    AK also had the implied cooperation of CNN and other networks when they broadcast very poorly conceived "documentaries" suggesting AK was railroaded.
    The AK IS INNOCENT machine has been working overtime for over 4 years. However if you look at a very simple story of the Kercher murder both AK and RS are convincingly implicated in a felony. We can never be certain exactly what AK and RS did during the hours of 10PM and 11AM Nov 1-2 2007. We can be sure however that the 2 were NOT soundly innnocently asleep at the RS flat.

    11. How about citing some evidence??
    In essence, in Italy once a prosecutor decides to charge you, you are probably going to jail. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it."
    This is a sweeping serious indictment. How about some evidence to support it.
    A similar claim is being made vis a vis US legal system:
    The entire US criminal system is corrupt and racist. Nearly 2 million people are currently incarcerated. What we have is a restoration of Jim Crow. ( See The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michele Anderson and Cornell West for this argument)

    How about citing a book, a study, or a dissertation making the argument that the Italian legal system is either corrupt or at least inadequate in finding "truth and justice"??

    12 Theories of crime when investigating a case.
    "In the Knox trial we have seen the investigators form a theory right from the start, then go about collecting evidence to support their theory. The initial prosecutor bought into that theory immediately and embellished it considerably"

    I have touched on this idea of constructing some sort of scenario of a crime that will guide the nature and direction of the subsequent investigation. I maintain it is requisite to form a hypothesis of "what happened" before one can readily understand the "evidence".
    The Kercher murder -
    Police find a locked bedroom door. They find a dead body underneath a quilt. The body shows bruising around the neck lips and face as well as deep puncture wounds to the neck. Kercher was naked from chest down and her bra was cut away.
    Blood splatter and foot prints were found. Blood was found in the neighboring bathroom.
    A "phony" broken window and heaped up clothes found in roomates room.

    OK
    Anybody thinking about this case will proceed by creating scenarios that fit the findings.
    A. It is unlikely that Kercher committed suicide. SO we have a criminal "homicide".
    B.Somebody other than Kercher did this. Who might you think about?
    C. Roomates. Most alibis ergo most roomates are ruled out.
    D. Hypothesis - Random entry burglary attempt and felony murder. This is a good hypothesis to keep.
    Blanket and locked door with a key militates against forced entry and homicide. For example if you consulted a police database around the world collecting all cases of forced entry and murder how many times is the deceased locked in the room with a key and how many times is the body covered with a quilt? Decidedly unusual but at least hold that thought.
    Front door ajar closed only with a key. So who had keys to the front door?
    The "staged" forced entry broken window and heaped clothes was indeed staged. How many policemen would look at those circumstances - all of them - and reason - "hmmm - I believe somebody scaled the 15 foot wall and gained entrance and then proceeded to rummage through clothes?" OK Hold that thought and proceed.
    Blood evidence - RG prints and DNA. Voila - murder solved.
    Lone murder theory is definitely a viable hypothesis.
    It is vitiated by the nature and extent of the wounds and by the facts that Kerchers phones were confiscated and discarded, her keys retained and discarded and she was locked in her room = What was RG thinking???
    NOW if only AK and RS had reliable alibis, then we would have to think again about the lone murder theory or at least think RG had some help.
    The point is that at this juncture one must postulate a number of different causal theories of how this murder was executed. A theory here is a "story" that includes all the clues.
    YES. The Italian police created a story of what happened after the scene was analyzed. This is NO different from any American police action and crime investigation.
    Yes PL was implicated and arrested. The theory was PL and AK did it. So the story at that time went. When PL produced a viable alibi - Viola - he was released and a new theory of crime created.

    So now take this bare bones story.
    AK and RS left the flat and met up with RG at the courtyard outside the Kercher domicile.
    They entered and interacted with Kercher who was there. Somehow for some reason violence ensued and Kercher was sexually molested and murdered. RG fled the scene after taking some care to sop up the blood with towels.
    AK and RS meantime opted to implicate RG solely by staging the entry. The door was bolted and cell phones confiscated in order to escape detection for a longer period of time and to avert attention if roomates below showed up.
    AK and RS return late after washing themselves up and riding themselves of bloody clothes - could be AK or RS or both.
    AK returns in the AM when there is light to inspect the scene and continue staging and tidying up.
    Now is there ANY evidence whatsoever to contradict this story??

    13 Non sequitor fallacy

    " STATEMENT
    When considering the Italian judicial system, it is critical that everything is done properly and according to rules of law before the trial starts for justice to be done.

    CONDITION
    If it is all messed up before you get to trial,

    CONCLUSION
    then it is corrupt and impossible to do justice under their system.

    Comment
    In any judicial system - by definition - it is important to "do things properly according to "standard operating procedures" before a trial begins. It is certainly possible that pre trials errors could be made but still the trial outcome turns out to be correct and just.
    It is also possible that everything during pretrial investigation is competent and accurate yet an improper outcome ensues.
    One could arguably claim the OJ Simpson trial is such an example. That is to say, if the entire Simpson proceedings were presented to 100 juries Simpson would have been found guilty 99/100 times.

    The "if- then" statement above is fallacious because given the truth of the "if" clause the "then" clause does NOT follow.

    "
    Last edited by Salem; 02-05-2014 at 06:00 PM.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    8,773
    Thank you to Tugelo and Zeno for providing two well written viewpoints.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,749
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    What worries me is that the journalists may have "set him up" to bring down the verdict. He has political enemies as well.
    Assuming that Italian Judges are even remotely similar to American judges wrt ethical responsibility and common judicial sense, he could not have been "set up" by the media. The only thing he should have said, if anything, was, no comment. Judges rarely speak to the media about their current cases and, if they do, it definitely isn't to suggest that a defendants' failure to testify impacted the decision in any way. Here, at least, that would be an OMFG moment, imo. It's almost as if he had to have done it on purpose.

    ALL JMO

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 02-19-2014, 09:42 AM
  2. MySpace Links/Comments & Facebook comments
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 706
    Last Post: 09-14-2008, 05:11 PM

Tags for this Thread