Jack by the Hedge said:
The absolutely horrible nature of the crime does not in any way excuse the police for their incompetent investigation. On the contrary.
I absolutely don't care that you resent the thought that those innocent people might be able to make money out of their terrible experiences. The result of their wrongful conviction, that they got jailed and the real killer got lesser punishment, is what sickens me.
So what, in your view is the solution?
Solution to what? Solution to the reality of the incompetent investigation that JbtH reports on? What do your suggestions below have to do with anything JbtH wrote? I mean, did you mean the solution to people being wrongfully convicted, then selling books to pay for the 100s of thousands it cost to defend themselves from a prosecution, that on the other side had unlimited resources of a sovereign State?
Vixen said:
- Abolish trial by jury/judges courts
- Let the PR agencies slug it out amongst themselves for best press coverage of the case
- Let all the academic scientists argue the case on paper amongs themselves
- Have some kind of 'Pop Idol' voting system wherein the public can vote in the court of Public Opinion (remember the type of kack that gets voted through)
How would abolishing trial by jury cure wrongful convictions? Or incompetent investigations? That would cure ALL convictions! Did you actually read JbtH's post for comprehension?
For the first few years of this case, the Perugian prosecution enjoyed unfettered access to the Tabloid Press, who printed unverified leaks from the prosecution, mostly to do with the 'Foxy Knoxy' defamation, the HIV scare which then resulted in someone leaking to the press the accused's sexual history, and so on and so on. As Tabloid Hack Nick Pisa said, he'd get access to what the prosecution was claiming, and would send a story based on it to the Tabloids in England, unverified and un fact-checked. He said that if he delayed filing the story to fact-check, he'd simply be scooped by some other tabloid hack. Mignini had unfettered access to the PR machine known as the Tabloid press!
"
Let all the academic scientists argue the case on paper amongst themselves", ah, er, did you really think that that is a bad thing? That after a trial is over, scientists would try to discern the worth of the science behind the conviction/acquittal? Is that bad? I can't believe you would mock that as a solution to what JbtH said. It's a bit of a non sequitur to include it as a complaint.... but what's wrong with allowing science..... ah, er, to do science?
'Pop idol voting system'!? Talk about a non sequitur and strawman rolled into one.
As for 'the real killer got lesser punishment', surely that is one for the politics section, as it is the Italian legislature that democratically decided that defendants in serious crime cases could get a fast track in exchange for an abbreviated trial. Likewise sentencing guidelines. The judge's hands were tied. It had to take into account Guede's age as of the time of the crime and his previous offences. That has nothing to do with Mignini or Guede. The 'kids' could have done the same.
No they could not have, not if they were going to plead not guilty. It's just incredible to consider the world in which that comment about Guede and 'fast-track' would come from.