Er, you said your method for forming an opinion was to search out engineers and authority figures. That tells me you lack confidence in your own critical faculties. That's fine. That is your way. Nobody can refuse you that right.
"I don't care what all those structural engineers and authorities on fire prevention say, I can clearly see the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions, and all of you who accept the Official Government Story are just blind sheeple who can't think for yourselves!"
Judicial facts: yes, a judicial fact becomes a fact.
No. From "
Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth," by Gal Rosenzweig (
Frontiers in Psychology, July 6, 2022):
The Legal Truth
The legal fact-finding process is based on witness reports about sources of information, such as eyewitness testimonies and scientific measurements. Although the fact finders examine the validity of witness testimonies based on reports of various interviewing techniques, such as cognitive interviews, or based on scientific department reports, and the legal fact-finding model relies mainly on estimations and risk management. Fact finders hear witness testimonies, assess their validity based on their perceptions, and decide what has happened in reality. Although fact finders also consider the relationship between crime scene findings and the witnesses' reports, they examine only whether these correlate. They use the synthesis of evidence, logic, life experience, and the rules of evidence to determine whether to rely on the testimony. Finally, their decisions are guided by confidence in the coherence of the information.
Court rulings show that making decisions based on these guiding principles may be problematic because (a) the correlations might be random, being based on statistics with low probability; (b) the justifications might contradict scientific research findings, as in the case of a credible eyewitness identification under problematic viewing conditions and a delayed lineup; (c) evidence synthesis might point to a certain conclusion even if a contradictory hypothesis cannot be discarded or if crucial information needed for validation, such as the possible error rate, is missing or not examined at all.
Brain science research may reveal the reasons why deciding based on these principles can be problematic, showing that prior knowledge unconsciously biases perception and can lead to false confidence about reality even if the pieces of information are sparse or inaccurate. Thus, deciding based on the confidence level regarding evidence coherence might diverge from reality because it may be based on the witnesses' and fact finders' prior knowledge rather than on evidence. Several psychological research findings regarding cognitive biases can also explain why deciding based on subjective perception regarding what happened at a crime scene could lead to mistakes. First, fact finders may be affected by tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is the tendency of actors in the criminal justice system to use heuristics and shortcuts to filter evidence selectively and build a case for a suspect's conviction, ignoring or suppressing evidence that points to the suspect's innocence. Tunnel vision motivates investigators, prosecutors, and judges to attribute importance and relevance to information that supports their original conclusion, while information inconsistent with the presumption of guilt is easily overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or considered unreliable. Second, the fact finders' decisions may also rely on several aspects of false judgments, e.g., about the plausibility of the testimony. Finally, other biases, such as confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and outcome bias are frequently observed in the criminal justice system. For example, confirmation bias is the favoring of information that confirms an individual's preconceptions or hypotheses independently of the truth of the information. Forensic findings can be also interpreted in a biased way. [citations omitted]
Your entire life is based on judicial facts: your birth certificate, your parents' marital status, your marital status, your kids' dates of birth status and legal names. Your driving licence. All legal facts.
No. These are
public records. Further, you have repeatedly insisted that judicial facts, once determined by a court of first instance, cannot, or at least should not, be changed, or even questioned. And yet, most of the examples you list here can and do change throughout a person's lifetime. Even information on a birth certificate can be changed in certain circumstances (e.g., a court finding of paternity).
So if a court decides something is a fact, then I am afraid it becomes so.
No. Courts can and do make mistakes. You are quick to claim that "the court got it wrong" whenever an appeals court or the ECHR rules in favor of Amanda or Raffaele, yet, whenever a court has found a "judicial fact" that works against them, you insist it must be set in stone and not even questioned.
The whole point of a trial is to test evidence for and against, employing independent expert witnesses by the court, if necessary, the defence always welcome to bring some of their own. After cross examination and weighing of the ALL merits, the panel of judges, including six permanent lay judges (in Italy) then have to deliberate and come to a verdict. That means it prefers one set of evidence over the others.
See article excerpt above.
There is the safety net of the appeal.
Which you decry as corrupt or incompetent whenever Amanda and Raffaele's convictions are overturned.
In a criminal trial all parties have the right to present their case. But if you lose, no point continuing to tubthump your defence (or charges, if the prosecution) all that matters is what the court has decided.
You just contradicted yourself.
In PR and advertising, what you get is a very one-sided view, in the case of AK, her chum, Madison Paxton, got her boyfriend on ROLLING STONE magazine . . .
Citation to where Madison was in a relationship with anyone who worked for RS.
. . . to run a huge story, RAILROADED!! with all kinds of claims of torture . . .
Here is a link to the
article. Kindly quote the sections that state that Amanda was "RAILROADED!!" or that contain "all kind of claims of torture."
. . . all-night interrogations . . .
Do you dispute that the all-night interrogations took place? Amanda and Raffaele went to the police station after 10:00pm, and Amanda signed her statement at 5:30am.
evil prosecutors, etcetera.
Kindly quote the section where Mignini is characterized as "evil." There is one uncomplimentary statement about him, but the article makes clear that that is how Knox's supporters view him, and not necessarily how the author views him.
There is no balance there. An article might add, 'the other party has been contacted for their comment' but anyone who reads a gossip rag like the DAILY MAIL, Page 6, TMZ, Radar or watches FOX News should always be aware that the quality of accuracy might not be what you would expect under cross-examination in a criminal trial or PhD thesis. PR is not even news/gossip entertainment, it is a decided attempt to persuade and persuasion is something we should all resist and be suspicious of when it crosses our path, or before you know it, you have just ordered an entire set of encyclopaedias or double-glazed windows.
You're absolutely right, Vixen. The author really should have interviewed Mignini and presented his views on the case in the article as well. Oh, wait, the author did.
Please stop with the trite clichés, 'assumes facts not in evidence'. It really isn't clever..
Please stop making statements that are unsupported by facts.
