:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:IMO Italy has a sort of pyramid of evidence to convict. Each piece of evidence (in this case mind you) has a weight given to it's relevance.
So it seems more of a totality of evidence.
Fred, make a stupid request, get a stupid response......... :razz:For instance in the US- If the knife was presented as the murder weapon, but it was thrown out for some reason... the accused is acquitted or not found guilty as it were in almost every instance.
In Italy- the knife may be thrown out... but the preponderance of other evidence might not lead to acquitted, and with the rest of the evidence (and it's weight) presented might still lead to the accused being found guilty.
At least that is my take... please don't razz me for it.
For instance in the US- If the knife was presented as the murder weapon, but it was thrown out for some reason... the accused is acquitted or not found guilty as it were in almost every instance.
In Italy- the knife may be thrown out... but the preponderance of other evidence might not lead to acquitted, and with the rest of the evidence (and it's weight) presented might still lead to the accused being found guilty.
At least that is my take... please don't razz me for it.
And this site shows the threshold for the burden of proof to be HIGHER in Italy::razz:
http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art315.htm
and this is not so good for Italy:
It is doubtful that an American or British judge would have summarily permitted such searches based on such a flimsy pretext.
it seemed to not ring true for me as well.....This bit:
I find to be extremely naive - American Judges routinely rubber stamp SWAT raids on just as flimsy of pretexts, as long as the words 'drugs', 'terrorist' or 'child *advertiser censored*' are involved. I won't get into the statistics of this here, as it is OT, but there is an alarming trend of overuse of paramilitary police forces in all western nations that shows every sign of getting worse with time, and innocents are paying the price.
Skewed, I don't agree with your post.
Could you show some instances where an item is named as a murder weapon in the US- thrown out- then the defendant is found guilty anyway?
Skewed, I don't agree with your post.
Could you show some instances where an item is named as a murder weapon in the US- thrown out- then the defendant is found guilty anyway?
Fred, make a stupid request, get a stupid response......... :razz:
(just kidding, but Italy seems a bit off-kilter in the evidentiary sphere, then)
No, I mean after the trial has started a person is still found guilty after the evidence (murder weapon) is thrown out. Not found guilty in a new trial.
Still very interesting case tho, thanks for the link.
I know. I was trying to think of a polite way to work in the misinformation.I was just amazed at whenever I clicked a button to try and exit, more and more photos and text popped up.
Someone should have told me that about 30 years ago.......Ain't no polite way. Just do it! :twocents:
BBM: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :great:
Apparently, you have never met a lawyer.
Now I don't know this particular attorney; he may genuinely care about justice for the Kercher family. SV's point, however, was that the system is set up so that the lawyer has a vested interest in something other than the truth.
the early articles incorrectly said it was Meredith's window that was broken (instead of FR's window)
I can't remember exactly... but I think it's one of the arguments written in RS's appeal - pointing out Rudy implicated himself by referring to FR's window when the press had (at that point) only referred to Meredith's window.
And from those posts, which discuss a systemic problem in which a lawyer is paid based on convictions rather than the revelation of the truth, posts in which each of us went out of his way to caution that we weren't impugning the ethics of the individual attorney, you concluded the following:
I think that's what you like to call a "whopper lie." None of us criticized or even mentioned the motives of the Kerchers. We didn't even say their lawyer was a bad guy. SV merely stated the obvious, that if the victim's attorney gets paid upon conviction, then that attorney becomes a de facto member of the prosecution, not a seeker of the truth.
But since you use the word "employ," I assume you are now conceding that perhaps the Kerchers pay Maresca in some manner. In some posts you seemed to take offense at the notion that Maresca might get paid for doing his job.
No, the independent experts admitting that Meredith's full profile was on the knife means that you were totally wrong and still keep going on about how wrong everybody else was. But I guess I got that totally wrong?