Is there any actual evidence of real torture? Lengthy interrogation is not torture.
Because their idiotic interrogation techniques produced an accusation against somebody who was working in a public business in a customer service role and thus had multiple alibis. Unless you’re now going to claim that all the customers at the bar were also in on the conspiracy and were lying to protect the bartender, that is a false positive.
No. Even back in 2007 computers would be able to take both 220V and 110V. The brick for your laptop converts AC to DC. These are designed to accept both 220V and 110V for this very reason. The international adaptors you buy in the airport don’t convert anything electrical. All they do is make the plugs fit. The computer brick does all the work.
Semantics. It may not fall under the official UN designation of torture or whatever, but it has all the same problems.
If you go up in this thread a few pages (and something like 6 years…), someone quoted that 25% of people exonerated by DNA evidence had made statements of guilt or other incriminating statements to police. It is simply not a reliable method to base any conclusions on–at best it’s a lead, and only that.
Claiming that Knox falsely accused her employer of the crime and is therefore suspicious is a complete nonstarter.
The police first got the idea that that man was involved in the murders because they assumed Amanda was and they found a text from Amanda to her boss on the night of the murder saying, basically, “See you later.” Instead of assuming that meant, “Hey, I’ll see you next time I come to work.” they chose to believe it meant, “Dude, want to come over and kill my roommate in that Satanic ritual sex game we talked about earlier?”
The alleged confession was the result of her being told to sign something in Italian that was a fantasy invented up by the police after a long interrogation in which she has said she was hit and threatened. Considering that the exact same officials have been caught in corruption scandals doing very similar things to other people (not the least of which was trying to frame an American novelist for being an accomplice to someone accused of being a Satanic serial killer but also includes illegal acts of petty revenge against other Italian officials and members of the press they decided were their enemies) I think she’s earned the right to be taken seriously on these claims.
Despite being 100% cleared for the murders it’s a shame that the slander conviction remains on her record. But considering that she had already served the time for that conviction by the time she was exonerated I guess the lawyers didn’t see much point in fighting that one.
Is this deep irony, or are you honestly now saying that if someone cannot prove they had no involvement, they should be viewed as guilty.
That would be what’s called a negative proof, which is pretty high up in the list of logical fallacies. Negative evidence - RationalWiki
I’ve long suspected you lawyers weren’t decent people…
Anyways, aren’t we talking about a civil system, if she sues? Or is there no distinction in Italy?
I don’t know exactly what the relevance of the reference is to the Napoleonic Code (which is about the civil law, not criminal), but if you’re trying to suggest that France and Italy don’t have the presumption of innocence, that is incorrect.
In France, the presumption of innocence was given constitutional status by the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” in 1989, and is currently given legislative protection by the French Code of Criminal Procedure.
In Italy, the presumption of innocence is protected by the Italian constitution.
In both countries, individuals accused of crimes have the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
They have the paper right to such a presumption, but, as we can see from this very thread, that right means little in practice unless you get lucky and have expensive attorneys.
Plenty of courts in countries with a strong presumption of innocence convict when they shouldn’t, the more so in high profile cases with strong public pressure to find a culprit. I don’t think you can extrapolate from there to a general conclusion about presumption of innocence being illusory.
So if courts convict when there is a clear presumption of innocence, your argument is that you believe the non publicized cases, the courts are fair? I find your reasoning lacking.
I consider reasonable doubt to be “does a reasonable theory exist that includes all of the evidence that indicates the defendant is not guilty”. If so, bam, case closed, stop wasting everyone’s time.
Prosecution can’t explain the timeline without wild speculation? The reasonable theory is “they are wrong”.
Only 1 witness to the crime and no physical evidence? The reasonable theory is “they lied”.
Admitted trigger puller states someone else put them else up to it but there isn’t any physical proof (like money) or the defendant was unconscious in a coma at the time? They lied.
And so on and so forth. But judges are elected officials, so they have an incentive to not intervene no matter how blatant it is, and jurors are idiots that 2 dueling lawyers get to pick out.
Do Italian courts have that nonsense about lawyers picking jurors? I think that’s just a USA custom (and yes, it’s stupid).
When I was on a jury, reasonable doubt was explained to us like this:
So, basically, if the defendant claims that space aliens teleported into the room and killed the person, the jury need not expect the prosecutor to waste his time trying to prove that such a thing did not happen.
OTOH, if there’s video footage of some other guy running away from the scene and tossing a gun into the lake, and the prosecutor did not say why this guy isn’t the killer, then there’s a problem.
There should be a problem if the only thing linking the defendant to the crime is the word of another person who will be executed if they don’t point the finger at someone.
The jury feeling the “subconscious facial ticks” of the individual testifying is supposed to somehow determine the truth shouldn’t be enough to convict.
Sure, if there’s 5 eyewitnesses and they are consistent, yeah, the odds are high the defendant did it. But if there is just 1, it’s reasonable to think that maybe they lied.
Instead, jurors think “do *I *think he did it” or “what happens if he’s guilty and we let him go…”
Just like in the good ol’ USA
I must say that tyhe Italian prosecutorial system is just bizarre…but we still have a man here in the USA (Major Nidal) who murdered 14 people-he still hasn’t gotten to trial…its been 5 years.
He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2013.
In fairness, he would probably still be working through the court martial and appeals process if he had presented a defense, but he didn’t call any witnesses or testify.