Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
I only called Knox incompetent.
And while guilt and innocence aren't dependent on what happens in the courtroom, surely whether or not a defendant is found to be guilty or innocent is dependent on just that. As such, when the prosecution can't make a good case, it does make sense to find the defendant innocent. That's exactly what you're supposed to do.
So perhaps the jury thought that the case was good enough to find the defendant guilty. Is this not a possibility?
Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
I only called Knox incompetent.
And while guilt and innocence aren't dependent on what happens in the courtroom, surely whether or not a defendant is found to be guilty or innocent is dependent on just that. As such, when the prosecution can't make a good case, it does make sense to find the defendant innocent. That's exactly what you're supposed to do.
So perhaps the jury thought that the case was good enough to find the defendant guilty. Is this not a possibility?
Of course they did. I mean, that's exactly what happened. How could you argue that the jury didn't think the case was good enough?
What we're talking about is whether or not the jury was right and whether or not the peculiarities of the Italian court system along with the handling of the case led to the jury being unduly influenced or misled.
Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.
I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.
You're the one who brought up the incompetent prosecutor as proof of innocence thing, so... yes you did?
Please could you point out any claims about anyone's innocence or incompetence in relation to this trial?
I feel a misunderstanding of some sort may have occurred.
I looked at the Boing Boing article. I was expecting something a bit more extreme.
It doesn't say anything about her innocence -- It merely derides Italy's court system.
Which is one of the things i've been trying to point out, more than anything it's a knee jerk (this is getting really overused now) reaction with Italy bashing thrown in. I posted it as an example of what I was talking about how in the media right now and in this thread there's an overwhelming subtext of that somehow the Italian court system and government is totally corrupt and incompetent so by subtext she's this innocent person at the mercy of these evil people.
Rarely anyone is taking a step back and saying "hey, what about what she said during the court proceedings?".
Again, it seems like I have to say this every post now.. I do not care whether she's innocent, guilty or the reincarnation of elvis in female form. What I have been saying is that nobody is taking a step back and saying "what about what she said?" and instead becoming purely focused on Italy bashing.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
I only called Knox incompetent.
And while guilt and innocence aren't dependent on what happens in the courtroom, surely whether or not a defendant is found to be guilty or innocent is dependent on just that. As such, when the prosecution can't make a good case, it does make sense to find the defendant innocent. That's exactly what you're supposed to do.
So perhaps the jury thought that the case was good enough to find the defendant guilty. Is this not a possibility?
A jury might find a person guilty in a trial where the prosecution fabricates evidence because they believe the evidence showed the person was guilty, sure. The fabricated evidence sort of tubes the whole system. Not saying the prosecution here fabricated evidence, but they sure played fast and loose with it, and were allowed to bring in statements that the judge had already said were illegally obtained.
Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.
I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.
You're the one who brought up the incompetent prosecutor as proof of innocence thing, so... yes you did?
Please could you point out any claims about anyone's innocence or incompetence in relation to this trial?
I feel a misunderstanding of some sort may have occurred.
The first quote in this very tree is you defending the fact that the prosecution changed its story multiple times. In essence, you're saying that this isn't a sign of the weakness of the case against Knox or poor reasoning on the part of the prosecution.
Rarely anyone is taking a step back and saying "hey, what about what she said during the court proceedings?".
Again, it seems like I have to say this every post now.. I do not care whether she's innocent, guilty or the reincarnation of elvis in female form. What I have been saying is that nobody is taking a step back and saying "what about what she said?" and instead becoming purely focused on Italy bashing.
...So... what about what she said? :?
I'm interested to see if you have anything new to say, because what she said (hah) has already been talked about in this thread multiple times.
I looked at the Boing Boing article. I was expecting something a bit more extreme.
It doesn't say anything about her innocence -- It merely derides Italy's court system.
Which is one of the things i've been trying to point out, more than anything it's a knee jerk (this is getting really overused now) reaction with Italy bashing thrown in. I posted it as an example of what I was talking about how in the media right now and in this thread there's an overwhelming subtext of that somehow the Italian court system and government is totally corrupt and incompetent so by subtext she's this innocent person at the mercy of these evil people.
Rarely anyone is taking a step back and saying "hey, what about what she said during the court proceedings?".
Again, it seems like I have to say this every post now.. I do not care whether she's innocent, guilty or the reincarnation of elvis in female form. What I have been saying is that nobody is taking a step back and saying "what about what she said?" and instead becoming purely focused on Italy bashing.
except no one is actually doing that
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.
I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.
You're the one who brought up the incompetent prosecutor as proof of innocence thing, so... yes you did?
Please could you point out any claims about anyone's innocence or incompetence in relation to this trial?
I feel a misunderstanding of some sort may have occurred.
The first quote in this very tree is you defending the fact that the prosecution changed its story multiple times. In essence, you're saying that this isn't a sign of the weakness of the case against Knox or poor reasoning on the part of the prosecution.
This isn't the same as me saying that the prosecution was incompetent without you making some leaps in reasoning on my behalf.
Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.
I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.
You're the one who brought up the incompetent prosecutor as proof of innocence thing, so... yes you did?
Please could you point out any claims about anyone's innocence or incompetence in relation to this trial?
I feel a misunderstanding of some sort may have occurred.
The first quote in this very tree is you defending the fact that the prosecution changed its story multiple times. In essence, you're saying that this isn't a sign of the weakness of the case against Knox or poor reasoning on the part of the prosecution.
This isn't the same as me saying that the prosecution was incompetent without you making some leaps in reasoning on my behalf.
Do you not see how saying, "X isn't a sign of incompetence/wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution," is a statement about the prosecution's incompetence and, indirectly, Knox's innocence in relation to the trial? It's not a definitive claim, but it is an obvious defense.
Apart from that, it was a flawed defense for the reasons stated above.
Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
I don't see how you can draw a comparison.
Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?
Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.
If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.
It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.
I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.
You're the one who brought up the incompetent prosecutor as proof of innocence thing, so... yes you did?
Please could you point out any claims about anyone's innocence or incompetence in relation to this trial?
I feel a misunderstanding of some sort may have occurred.
The first quote in this very tree is you defending the fact that the prosecution changed its story multiple times. In essence, you're saying that this isn't a sign of the weakness of the case against Knox or poor reasoning on the part of the prosecution.
This isn't the same as me saying that the prosecution was incompetent without you making some leaps in reasoning on my behalf.
Do you not see how saying, "X isn't a sign of incompetence/wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution," is a statement about the prosecution's incompetence and, indirectly, Knox's innocence in relation to the trial? It's not a definitive claim, but it is an obvious defense.
Apart from that, it was a flawed defense for the reasons stated above.
Do you not see how "admission of wrongdoing" is not the same as "sign of incompetence/wrongdoing"?
Space Coyote on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
also everyone go read The Monster of Florance, or read up on it... and notice just who was in charge of the police side of it was in charge of the knox case.
And no the prosecution was not incompetent, they are devious. The main guy is under investigation for corruption but has such connections as to be able to delay the investigation again and again.
I give credit to the Kerchers, kept a dignified silence throughout and wouldn't be drawn on the "do you agree with the verdict" beyond her brother saying they hoped this drew a line under it.
As much as I agree Italy's justice system is bullshit I think some elements of the US media are pushing the "white American girl MUST be innocent!?!" angle a bit much.
13 men and women, ranging in age from their early 50s to mid-70s, were arrested and indicted in Japan for buying votes in an election. Six confessed to buying votes with liquor, cash and catered parties. All were acquitted in 2007 in a local district court, which found that the confessions had been entirely fabricated. The presiding judge said the defendants had "made confessions in despair while going through marathon questioning." [3]
The Japanese criminal justice system has an extremely high conviction rate which was significantly lower before Japan eliminated its jury system in 1943. Lobbying by human rights groups and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations resulted in the passing of a judicial reform bill in May, 2004, which will reintroduce a lay-jury system in 2009.[1]
Many Western human rights organizations alleged that the high conviction rate is due to rampant use of conviction solely based on confession, notwithstanding Article 38 of Japan's Constitution, which categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession," and that no person can be convicted unless accompanied by other evidence to corroborate that confession. Confessions are often obtained after long periods of questioning by police. This can, at times, take weeks or months during which time the suspect is in detention and can be prevented from contacting a lawyer or family [2]. Thus, since the suspect is put through prolonged strain, stress and pressure, the reliability of such confessions can be questioned. To Japanese citizens and police, however, the arrest itself already creates the presumption of guilt which needs only to be verified via a confession [3].
So with the Knox case, did the three of them rape the poor girl first? I keep reading about "atrocious torture and sexual perversion" but everytime I read any details about the case it's always "cut her up and then threw her under a pillow".
Which is awful, but just kinda par for the course when it comes to murder cases.
Mignini interrogated me for two hours, demanding I confess to a crime I did not commit, and it was terrifying. He is a powerful interrogator.
wait
wait
What?
The author I quoted was following a high-profile murder trial and pointed out that "A wizard did it" is not a valid explanation, and prosecutor Mignini became upset.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
So with the Knox case, did the three of them rape the poor girl first? I keep reading about "atrocious torture and sexual perversion" but everytime I read any details about the case it's always "cut her up and then threw her under a pillow".
Which is awful, but just kinda par for the course when it comes to murder cases.
No, that probably did not happen and is all not even circumstantial evidence, but a theory created by a prosecutor that is currently under investigation for corruption. There is no psychical evidence pointing to that happening. None.
Read thread.
The whole preston interrogation and the fact that this basically happened in mirror 2-10+ years ago is kinda crazy
Mignini interrogated me for two hours, demanding I confess to a crime I did not commit, and it was terrifying. He is a powerful interrogator.
wait
wait
What?
The author I quoted was following a high-profile murder trial and pointed out that "A wizard did it" is not a valid explanation, and prosecutor Mignini became upset.
Oh, I read that wrong. I thought you were saying YOU were interrogated by him.
13 men and women, ranging in age from their early 50s to mid-70s, were arrested and indicted in Japan for buying votes in an election. Six confessed to buying votes with liquor, cash and catered parties. All were acquitted in 2007 in a local district court, which found that the confessions had been entirely fabricated. The presiding judge said the defendants had "made confessions in despair while going through marathon questioning." [3]
The Japanese criminal justice system has an extremely high conviction rate which was significantly lower before Japan eliminated its jury system in 1943. Lobbying by human rights groups and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations resulted in the passing of a judicial reform bill in May, 2004, which will reintroduce a lay-jury system in 2009.[1]
Many Western human rights organizations alleged that the high conviction rate is due to rampant use of conviction solely based on confession, notwithstanding Article 38 of Japan's Constitution, which categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession," and that no person can be convicted unless accompanied by other evidence to corroborate that confession. Confessions are often obtained after long periods of questioning by police. This can, at times, take weeks or months during which time the suspect is in detention and can be prevented from contacting a lawyer or family [2]. Thus, since the suspect is put through prolonged strain, stress and pressure, the reliability of such confessions can be questioned. To Japanese citizens and police, however, the arrest itself already creates the presumption of guilt which needs only to be verified via a confession [3].
So you're saying Japan needs to go in the hole too?
The only one with a retarded knee jerk reaction in this thread is you.
I'm not American, so have fun trying to blame this on your stupid "America good Italy bad" theory.
What you need to do is read the thread and the articles that have been posted instead of jumping to conclusions about what motives people here have for attacking Italy (hint: it has something to do with this thread). Your preposterous theories would be on some solid ground if we all agree to assume that the Italian media is leaving out crucial evidence that damns Knox.
Thankfully, people here are smarter than that.
Also, feel free to completely ignore the rape apologist verdict the Italian "justice" system managed to fumble. It's not relevant or anything as to how fucking useless their system is, no sir.
There's this really infantile (yes, knee jerk) reaction going on how because she's American and because the prosecution supposedly did a few cock ups magically makes her innocent.
Who has argued she's innocent?
BTW - the burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove their innocence, according to the Italian constitution.
Also BTW - the British press hasn't exactly been riding the objectiveness pony with this trial either. It's been largely "America! Fuck them!"
There's this really infantile (yes, knee jerk) reaction going on how because she's American and because the prosecution supposedly did a few cock ups magically makes her innocent.
Interrogation for 14 hours without an attorney, the jury being corrupted by a rabid media, and using illegally gathered evidence in the trial is way and beyond "a few cock ups" In the US, this would be near instantly declared a mistrial.
Also, it's not Innocent.
Trials are either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". This is an important distinction.
"Not Guilty" means that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it. This means that they very well could have done it. But that doesn't matter. The ideal philosophy that any good Justice System operates under is "It's better for 100 guilty men to go free then for one innocent to be punished" Because otherwise it's easy for the courts to become a system to oppress the people.
Pata on
Episode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
There's this really infantile (yes, knee jerk) reaction going on how because she's American and because the prosecution supposedly did a few cock ups magically makes her innocent.
Who has argued she's innocent?
BTW - the burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove their innocence, according to the Italian constitution.
Also BTW - the British press hasn't exactly been riding the objectiveness pony with this trial either. It's been largely "America! Fuck them!"
for all the comradeship, Europe sure does love to "put them in their place" with the US every now and again, with their news anyway.
then again the whole tabloid thing in all of europe is just so atrocious, i just cannot believe it still exists
Oh Italy, worst country which I'd still be inclined to call first world.
Although at this point I think I'd call it a second world nation, given how absolutely fucked and corrupt their government is to the point that basic services can break down (garbage collection).
Okay, I know it's not relevant, but this does bother me.
Second World nations are nations that were aligned with the Communist Bloc. Even if Italy sucks, it doesn't become a Second World Nation. It just becomes a shitty First World Nation. The definition has very little to do with standard of living, and everything to do with political alignment. Iran under the Shah was a First World nation, despite having a standard of living several times more godawful than, say, Yugoslavia or the USSR in the same time period. Taiwan was a First World Nation while it was dirt poor, because communism was illegal there.
TL;DR--that is not how the Second World works!
Jesus christ.
The communist bloc does not exist anymore - obviously. It was however defined by various absurdities, like shortages of random items, services not working, universal corruption of government ruling parties etc.
Calling Italy a second world nation seems an apt way of summarizing the level to which they've managed to sink their government. One would also note the original reason we called them second world was because the standard of living sucked compared to the first world, but was still better then dying in Rwanda.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I was in Italy for 2 various long stints of time, during that time period we had a great professor who was Italian but lived in France and America. He had a great way to describe Italy that i think has been mentioned before. I am paraphrasing here.
Italy is Europe's Mexico. Only we don't need to build a fence because we have mountains.
13 men and women, ranging in age from their early 50s to mid-70s, were arrested and indicted in Japan for buying votes in an election. Six confessed to buying votes with liquor, cash and catered parties. All were acquitted in 2007 in a local district court, which found that the confessions had been entirely fabricated. The presiding judge said the defendants had "made confessions in despair while going through marathon questioning." [3]
The Japanese criminal justice system has an extremely high conviction rate which was significantly lower before Japan eliminated its jury system in 1943. Lobbying by human rights groups and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations resulted in the passing of a judicial reform bill in May, 2004, which will reintroduce a lay-jury system in 2009.[1]
Many Western human rights organizations alleged that the high conviction rate is due to rampant use of conviction solely based on confession, notwithstanding Article 38 of Japan's Constitution, which categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession," and that no person can be convicted unless accompanied by other evidence to corroborate that confession. Confessions are often obtained after long periods of questioning by police. This can, at times, take weeks or months during which time the suspect is in detention and can be prevented from contacting a lawyer or family [2]. Thus, since the suspect is put through prolonged strain, stress and pressure, the reliability of such confessions can be questioned. To Japanese citizens and police, however, the arrest itself already creates the presumption of guilt which needs only to be verified via a confession [3].
So you're saying Japan needs to go in the hole too?
You know Phoenix Wright?
Yeah, there's a reason for that.
13 men and women, ranging in age from their early 50s to mid-70s, were arrested and indicted in Japan for buying votes in an election. Six confessed to buying votes with liquor, cash and catered parties. All were acquitted in 2007 in a local district court, which found that the confessions had been entirely fabricated. The presiding judge said the defendants had "made confessions in despair while going through marathon questioning." [3]
The Japanese criminal justice system has an extremely high conviction rate which was significantly lower before Japan eliminated its jury system in 1943. Lobbying by human rights groups and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations resulted in the passing of a judicial reform bill in May, 2004, which will reintroduce a lay-jury system in 2009.[1]
Many Western human rights organizations alleged that the high conviction rate is due to rampant use of conviction solely based on confession, notwithstanding Article 38 of Japan's Constitution, which categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession," and that no person can be convicted unless accompanied by other evidence to corroborate that confession. Confessions are often obtained after long periods of questioning by police. This can, at times, take weeks or months during which time the suspect is in detention and can be prevented from contacting a lawyer or family [2]. Thus, since the suspect is put through prolonged strain, stress and pressure, the reliability of such confessions can be questioned. To Japanese citizens and police, however, the arrest itself already creates the presumption of guilt which needs only to be verified via a confession [3].
So you're saying Japan needs to go in the hole too?
You know Phoenix Wright?
Yeah, there's a reason for that.
Americans: "She was inprisoned two years without a trial? And then the trial turned out to be a pre-determined farce? Man Americans would never do something like that
Ironyyyy:whistle:
(yeah not saying it's not terrible, just saying "our system is way better than that" I must eye roll at least a tiny bit)
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Americans: "She was inprisoned two years without a trial? And then the trial turned out to be a pre-determined farce? Man Americans would never do something like that
Ironyyyy:whistle:
(yeah not saying it's not terrible, just saying "our system is way better than that" I must eye roll at least a tiny bit)
First of all, she's white.
secondly, and on an actual serious note, Guantanamo gets military and prisoners of war in to the mix, which is a bit different from a civilian criminal trial.
Not that Guantanamo is okay in ANY regard, but you can't judge the American judicial system based on it because it is not representative.
Except those people are not soldiers, so under any reasonable standards they are not soldiers of war. They are civilians detained by the military and not given a military trial. Put it this way, from the perspective of the people subjected to it, ignoring torture and the more abhorrent conditions at Guantanamo bay, the situations are analogous.
But I agree these are not the same thing, but the outrage of the American media as though there was no internal precedent for this kind of treatment of foreign nationals is just hilariously ironic.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Except those people are not soldiers, so under any reasonable standards they are not soldiers of war. They are civilians detained by the military and not given a military trial. Put it this way, from the perspective of the people subjected to it, ignoring torture and the more abhorrent conditions at Guantanamo bay, the situations are analogous.
Gitmo is not ignored. One of the reasons the guy in the White House is there is because he promised to shut it down.
The outrage about Guantanamo is almost exclusively left protesting, and even there it's largely a non issue (there are no major protests etc). And the Media certainly havn't been too positive about shutting down the place doing exactly what this story is all about.
And yes two wrongs don't make a right, I said an equivalent statement in my earlier post. Reading comprehension ftw.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I realize that you are trying to make a point that America isn't perfect, but you are being willfully ignorant of some important distinctions in order to maintain that Gitmo is any sort of parallel to this case.
Gitmo is indeed an issue, but it's not an issue of the American Judicial system, it is an issue of OTHER American systems.
Except what abut the guys from Gitmo now about t get a trial, what type of trial is that? Oh yeah, a trial in a civilian federal court. So your claim that they are prisoners of war is wrong. And yes I am not saying the situation is equivalent, I'm saying it's analogous. The fact it's the military or police doing the handling is not the big difference you make it out to be, the law that supports it (patriot act) was passed by congress, and so far upheld by the supreme court.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Except what abut the guys from Gitmo now about t get a trial, what type of trial is that? Oh yeah, a trial in a civilian federal court.
So wait, now you're upset because they are FINALY going to be treated properly?
Or, if your issue is purely semantic, then notice that when I typed out the phrase "prisoner of war" I deliberately went with little "p" little "w". I do not personally believe that many of these individuals were real enemy combantants, but when criticizing the JUDICIAL system, you need to recognize what decision they had NO PART IN because they were made by the MILITARY.
I feel like a broken record here. What you're doing is like blaming the FAA for a pothole. Yes, a pothole is bad, and yes, the FAA does deal with transportation, but in the individual case that you've selected, they simply aren't the authority in charge.
The thing about Gitmo is that there is a reason it has taken so long to put the prisoners to trial. Thats because the Bush administration wanted a kangaroo court, rubberstamping their own verdicts. All the while the Lawyers,Judges and courts have been trying to stop the administration.
Had the prisoners at gitmo gotten regular trials, most of them would be in Jail/Death Row by now. Or released as there are several prisoners that caught up in sweeps and had nothing to do with Al Quaida.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
So perhaps the jury thought that the case was good enough to find the defendant guilty. Is this not a possibility?
yeah, I noticed this too.
If that boingboing post is the worst example of "italy bashing" you could find you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Of course they did. I mean, that's exactly what happened. How could you argue that the jury didn't think the case was good enough?
What we're talking about is whether or not the jury was right and whether or not the peculiarities of the Italian court system along with the handling of the case led to the jury being unduly influenced or misled.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Please could you point out any claims about anyone's innocence or incompetence in relation to this trial?
I feel a misunderstanding of some sort may have occurred.
Which is one of the things i've been trying to point out, more than anything it's a knee jerk (this is getting really overused now) reaction with Italy bashing thrown in. I posted it as an example of what I was talking about how in the media right now and in this thread there's an overwhelming subtext of that somehow the Italian court system and government is totally corrupt and incompetent so by subtext she's this innocent person at the mercy of these evil people.
Rarely anyone is taking a step back and saying "hey, what about what she said during the court proceedings?".
Again, it seems like I have to say this every post now.. I do not care whether she's innocent, guilty or the reincarnation of elvis in female form. What I have been saying is that nobody is taking a step back and saying "what about what she said?" and instead becoming purely focused on Italy bashing.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
The first quote in this very tree is you defending the fact that the prosecution changed its story multiple times. In essence, you're saying that this isn't a sign of the weakness of the case against Knox or poor reasoning on the part of the prosecution.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
...So... what about what she said? :?
I'm interested to see if you have anything new to say, because what she said (hah) has already been talked about in this thread multiple times.
except no one is actually doing that
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
This isn't the same as me saying that the prosecution was incompetent without you making some leaps in reasoning on my behalf.
Do you not see how saying, "X isn't a sign of incompetence/wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution," is a statement about the prosecution's incompetence and, indirectly, Knox's innocence in relation to the trial? It's not a definitive claim, but it is an obvious defense.
Apart from that, it was a flawed defense for the reasons stated above.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Do you not see how "admission of wrongdoing" is not the same as "sign of incompetence/wrongdoing"?
again, reposting this
also everyone go read The Monster of Florance, or read up on it... and notice just who was in charge of the police side of it was in charge of the knox case.
And no the prosecution was not incompetent, they are devious. The main guy is under investigation for corruption but has such connections as to be able to delay the investigation again and again.
As much as I agree Italy's justice system is bullshit I think some elements of the US media are pushing the "white American girl MUST be innocent!?!" angle a bit much.
wait
wait
What?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
(the first interrogation of many)
Reminds me of the Japanese legal system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan#Conviction_rate
Which is awful, but just kinda par for the course when it comes to murder cases.
The author I quoted was following a high-profile murder trial and pointed out that "A wizard did it" is not a valid explanation, and prosecutor Mignini became upset.
No, that probably did not happen and is all not even circumstantial evidence, but a theory created by a prosecutor that is currently under investigation for corruption. There is no psychical evidence pointing to that happening. None.
Read thread.
The whole preston interrogation and the fact that this basically happened in mirror 2-10+ years ago is kinda crazy
Oh, I read that wrong. I thought you were saying YOU were interrogated by him.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
So you're saying Japan needs to go in the hole too?
The only one with a retarded knee jerk reaction in this thread is you.
I'm not American, so have fun trying to blame this on your stupid "America good Italy bad" theory.
What you need to do is read the thread and the articles that have been posted instead of jumping to conclusions about what motives people here have for attacking Italy (hint: it has something to do with this thread). Your preposterous theories would be on some solid ground if we all agree to assume that the Italian media is leaving out crucial evidence that damns Knox.
Thankfully, people here are smarter than that.
Also, feel free to completely ignore the rape apologist verdict the Italian "justice" system managed to fumble. It's not relevant or anything as to how fucking useless their system is, no sir.
Who has argued she's innocent?
BTW - the burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove their innocence, according to the Italian constitution.
Also BTW - the British press hasn't exactly been riding the objectiveness pony with this trial either. It's been largely "America! Fuck them!"
Interrogation for 14 hours without an attorney, the jury being corrupted by a rabid media, and using illegally gathered evidence in the trial is way and beyond "a few cock ups" In the US, this would be near instantly declared a mistrial.
Also, it's not Innocent.
Trials are either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". This is an important distinction.
"Not Guilty" means that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it. This means that they very well could have done it. But that doesn't matter. The ideal philosophy that any good Justice System operates under is "It's better for 100 guilty men to go free then for one innocent to be punished" Because otherwise it's easy for the courts to become a system to oppress the people.
for all the comradeship, Europe sure does love to "put them in their place" with the US every now and again, with their news anyway.
then again the whole tabloid thing in all of europe is just so atrocious, i just cannot believe it still exists
Jesus christ.
The communist bloc does not exist anymore - obviously. It was however defined by various absurdities, like shortages of random items, services not working, universal corruption of government ruling parties etc.
Calling Italy a second world nation seems an apt way of summarizing the level to which they've managed to sink their government. One would also note the original reason we called them second world was because the standard of living sucked compared to the first world, but was still better then dying in Rwanda.
Italy is Europe's Mexico. Only we don't need to build a fence because we have mountains.
You know Phoenix Wright?
Yeah, there's a reason for that.
Only via internet meme.
Ironyyyy:whistle:
(yeah not saying it's not terrible, just saying "our system is way better than that" I must eye roll at least a tiny bit)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
First of all, she's white.
secondly, and on an actual serious note, Guantanamo gets military and prisoners of war in to the mix, which is a bit different from a civilian criminal trial.
Not that Guantanamo is okay in ANY regard, but you can't judge the American judicial system based on it because it is not representative.
But I agree these are not the same thing, but the outrage of the American media as though there was no internal precedent for this kind of treatment of foreign nationals is just hilariously ironic.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Gitmo is not ignored. One of the reasons the guy in the White House is there is because he promised to shut it down.
Also, two wrongs don't make a right.
And yes two wrongs don't make a right, I said an equivalent statement in my earlier post. Reading comprehension ftw.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
but the people who are holding them are.
I realize that you are trying to make a point that America isn't perfect, but you are being willfully ignorant of some important distinctions in order to maintain that Gitmo is any sort of parallel to this case.
Gitmo is indeed an issue, but it's not an issue of the American Judicial system, it is an issue of OTHER American systems.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
So wait, now you're upset because they are FINALY going to be treated properly?
Or, if your issue is purely semantic, then notice that when I typed out the phrase "prisoner of war" I deliberately went with little "p" little "w". I do not personally believe that many of these individuals were real enemy combantants, but when criticizing the JUDICIAL system, you need to recognize what decision they had NO PART IN because they were made by the MILITARY.
I feel like a broken record here. What you're doing is like blaming the FAA for a pothole. Yes, a pothole is bad, and yes, the FAA does deal with transportation, but in the individual case that you've selected, they simply aren't the authority in charge.
Had the prisoners at gitmo gotten regular trials, most of them would be in Jail/Death Row by now. Or released as there are several prisoners that caught up in sweeps and had nothing to do with Al Quaida.