Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

True. I find religion fascinating, both the history and psychology of it.

At a book club meeting several years ago we were discussing "The da Vinci Code". The possibility of Jesus having a wife and children, especially in light of the evolution of Mary Magdalene from disciple to concubine to prostitute, opened up a discussion of Jesus being just a man. It was an intellectual discussion of possibility, not of fact. But one member kept quiet until she started crying and said, "No one is going to take Jesus away from me!" We were all shocked speechless as no one had attempted any such thing. But the mere discussion of Jesus' possible non-divinity was so threatening to this member that she couldn't handle it. As Mr. Spock would say "Fascinating".

Well, you could make up about anything you want about Jesus as nothing was written about him within 40 years of his death. There is little reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by anyone who knew Jesus first hand. My guess is that Jesus did live but the details of his life or what he actually might have said is not likely to be true. The story of him is likely to have been exaggerated greatly over time just like a game of telephone.

 

[Vixen]

Because the crime occurred later in the evening when they were home by themselves?

It's too bad they didn't have the foresight to hike over to the local 7-11 and stand in front of its CCTV camera for 4 hours holding up a sign saying "we're not murdering anyone atm"

It's too bad a footprint on the bathmat, highly compatible with Raff's, was found at the scene, as deemed by a footprint expert.

Then there's the luminol evidence, which Jim Clemente himself was raving about what a great tool it was in a crime scene.

Too bad Mez was covered in knife wounds three serious, 23 superficial, including knife flicks to her hands and forearms. Too bad Raff wrote to his Dad, I accidentally pricked Mez with my knife as I was cooking to cover his back.

The DNA, the other circumstantial evidence...

 

[Vixen]

So did Herod, so did Julius Caesar, so did Alexander the Great. Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. His Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93 to 94 AD 60 years after the supposed crucifixion. There is nothing written to confirm Jesus's existence even within 40 years of his death. Still, even if you could prove that this man lived and was crucified it still wouldn't support the claim that he was the son of God.

I'd disagree with you that Darkness Descending is appropriate. Still, it wasn't even in Darkness Descending. You don't provide a quote and maybe a page number so anyone can confirm its veracity. You have been practicing the Gish Gallop in written form. I'd recommend that everyone look up that term and see if they might agree with that assessment.

People are still reminiscing about WWI and WWII some 100 and 70 years after the event.

I did indeed provide a page number.

Gish gallop is the logical fallacy you yourself fall into. You have tried every which way technique to present a weak case.

 

[Vixen]

How on earth am I "referring to the masses"?

You claim the majority of agnostics are really atheists but too scared to say so because of fear of retribution. As we live in a largely secular society, I am doubtful of this. You seem to be saying that 'the majority believe XYZ, therefore XYZ is true.'

 

[Stacyhs]

Genesis is as perfectly good an explanation of creation, as any. Whilst we can see adaptation and mutation with our own eyes, there is no evidence at all we were ever descended from the lower primates. IMV humans have always been humans, albeit adapting to their environment, so that the ones who migrated north out of Africa ended up paler to soak up more of the (limited) sunlight, for example, and many thousands of years ago, man was more squat than he is now.

Yes, we share many similarities with other living things. It doesn't mean we are descended from amoeba-like one-celled beings who gradually evolved over millions of years to walk erect and discuss philosophy.

We share more than "many similarities". " Research on learning the entire genome of common chimpanzees was completed in 2005. A comparison between this and the human genome (completed in 2001) shows that 96% of DNA base pair sequences of humans and chimpanzees are the same. Most of the 4% difference is in duplicated non-gene segments. If only gene segments are compared, there is a 98% similarity. The genes that differ mostly control speech, smelling, hearing, digesting proteins, and susceptibility to certain diseases. These dissimilarities are to be expected given that we have been on essentially separate evolutionary tracks for 6-7 million years. During that time, we have been subject to somewhat different natural selection pressures. These differences led to bipedalism for our ancestors along with a much larger brain and, ultimately, speech." (http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm)

Of course science is essential, I am a scientist myself. It doesn't cancel out better ways of theorising. Not so long ago philosophers tried hard to change lead into gold and alchemy was born, the direct antecedent to chemistry nd medicine today. Virtually all the great men of science believed in astrology, numerology and ll sorts of stuff we consider mumbo-jumbo today.

It's called progress.

Yes, it's called progress which happens as we discover and learn new things. While many new discoveries in the sciences support evolution (DNA, anatomy, anthropology, etc) no new discoveries support that humans were created in their modern form..or even close to it. Just where are all the fossil remains of these humans alongside those of the dinosaurs or even earlier forms of life? Why do no hominid fossils show up until about 27 million years after the extinction of he dinosaurs?

Why cannot Amanda and Raff ever prove their innocence? Think about it.

Because, like with those who cling to creationism, the lack of supporting evidence does not deter those who need to believe otherwise.

 

[bagels]

Too bad Mez was covered in knife wounds three serious, 23 superficial, including knife flicks to her hands and forearms.

Yes, she was stabbed to death by Rudy Guede. The state pathologist who examined the body concluded the wounds were likely made with a smallish penknife.

Anyway we've been over this crap a thousand times. Just click my post history button to see how I would respond to any new posts you make in this thread.

If you still believe in the wacky theory you can't even consistently describe I can't stop you and at this point nothing will. When the ECHR crushes the calunnia case I urge you to step back and ponder that, with every single prosecutorial position being annihilated in the strongest terms, maybe the slain girl covered and surrounded by the forensic traces of a known window climbing knife carrying burglar in a window broke-in home was perhaps killed in the simple and obvious way the evidence plainly suggests. It's a long shot but you really ought to try it. It always was a pedestrian crime and case.

 

[acbytesla]

People are still reminiscing about WWI and WWII some 100 and 70 years after the event.

The authenticity of the Testimonium is highly suspect and is considered by religious scholars to certainly be both authentic and later Christian interpolation. But I still assert even if you could prove JC lived and was crucified it still wouldn't prove that he was a deity.

I did indeed provide a page number.

LMAO Yeah but there was nothing on that page that verified your post.

Gish gallop is the logical fallacy you yourself fall into. You have tried every which way technique to present a weak case.

Now you're making the Pee wee Herman argument.

 

[acbytesla]

Nonsense. Being believer in one religion, does not make you an atheist to other religions. An Atheist (note the prefix-'A', which signifies 'lacking') believes in no God at all. Period.

I would say, the majority of PGP are almost certainly as atheist as you are.

A perfectly fair, independent trial found the pair to be both guilty, despite Massei desperately bending over backward to find mitigation.

The only reason they were acquitted was because of defense pyrotechnics which went to extraordinary lengths to cast doubt. The scientific factual evidence shows without a shadow of a doubt the pair were involved in the murder, and even Bruno-Maresca spell this out.

You are so funny. Have you ever thought of doing stand up? Of course being a believer in any of the Monotheistic gods usually necessitates the rejection of other Gods. Not saying you are faithful to your own religion. But most adherents would.

No, contrary to your wild and absurd remarks, Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted because the evidence of their guilt was a combination of non-existant, corrupt and absurd.

 

[Planigale]

I think Vixen's contributions have been educational. In the UK there are strict rules on reporting crimes and trials to avoid prejudicing the trial. Vixen shows the importance of this. Vixen's evidence of guilt is very much influenced by early reports in the press, stories such as bleach receipts. Reports that Vixen feels are more valid than the testimony given in court. The report of the testing for menstrual blood is from an imagined conversation in darkness descending, not from testimony in court. The mixed blood meme and 'clear EPG' means blood memes are likewise from darkness descending, at least partly from imagined conversations. In contrast the actual testimony given by Steffanoni says the opposite. Steffanoni is explicitly clear, the source of the DNA cannot be known.

The message I take is that 'sub juice' rules are important for justice.

 

[Planigale]

It's too bad a footprint on the bathmat, highly compatible with Raff's, was found at the scene, as deemed by a footprint fingerprint expert.

Then there's the luminol evidence, which Jim Clemente himself was raving about what a great tool it was in a crime scene.

Too bad Mez was covered in knife wounds three serious, 23 superficial, including knife flicks to her hands and forearms. Too bad Raff wrote to his Dad, I accidentally pricked Mez with my knife as I was cooking to cover his back.

The DNA, the other circumstantial evidence...

Corrected for you. These would be the experts who admitted no familiarity with the anatomy of feet in court? Who were not aware that prints should be taken static and walking? That did not seem to be aware that feet change size during the day. That only examined photographs not the original mat? That they do not document how they obtained measures of a fraction of a millimetre from a non orthogonal photograph.

As a statistically competent person what does highly mean? Should the 'experts' have been able to give some guidance? Should their be SEM for their measurements?

FWIW, the measurements by the 'experts' are clearly fixed. The interpretation is clearly false.

 

[Planigale]

They went to trial, as is the defendant's right under habeus corpus, and the onus was on the prosecution for the state (the victim) to present and prove their case. This they did. Verdict :Guilty. Appeal Court; Verdict upheld.

It is in fact, the Supreme Court who dodged due legal process, triggered by the egregious behaviour of Hellmann. Once the pair had been let loose, they weren't going to return.

Do you actually know what habeas corpus is? It is a common law principle (hence not applicable in Italy) originating from the Magna Carta. It is not the right to trial. It is the right to bring a detained person before a court. It means that in theory people cannot be 'disappeared' in to jails / gaols by the state, Guantanamo and the the black site prisons of the extraordinary rendition process show that even in a state that recognises habeas corpus but does not recognise human rights the state can find extra-constitutional methods to disappear political prisoners.

ETA
Apparently not mentioned in Magna Carta, but a later development of common law. Just shows the need to fact check. Mea culpa for propagating a common error.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you actually know what habeas corpus is? It is a common law principle (hence not applicable in Italy) originating from the Magna Carta. It is not the right to trial. It is the right to bring a detained person before a court. It means that in theory people cannot be 'disappeared' in to jails / gaols by the state, Guantanamo and the the black site prisons of the extraordinary rendition process show that even in a state that recognises habeas corpus but does not recognise human rights the state can find extra-constitutional methods to disappear political prisoners.

ETA
Apparently not mentioned in Magna Carta, but a later development of common law. Just shows the need to fact check. Mea culpa for propagating a common error.

It's a very minor error to misstate the provenance and history of the habeas corpus doctrine, especially since you know properly what it is and what it means. It's a major error to misunderstand totally just what habeas corpus actually is and means.

Guess who made the major error......?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think Vixen's contributions have been educational. In the UK there are strict rules on reporting crimes and trials to avoid prejudicing the trial. Vixen shows the importance of this. Vixen's evidence of guilt is very much influenced by early reports in the press, stories such as bleach receipts. Reports that Vixen feels are more valid than the testimony given in court. The report of the testing for menstrual blood is from an imagined conversation in darkness descending, not from testimony in court. The mixed blood meme and 'clear EPG' means blood memes are likewise from darkness descending, at least partly from imagined conversations. In contrast the actual testimony given by Steffanoni says the opposite. Steffanoni is explicitly clear, the source of the DNA cannot be known.

The message I take is that 'sub juice' rules are important for justice.

I agree. I think most pro-guilt commentators have fallen foul of being seduced by the early "evidence" leaked by prosecutors and the police, all of which was misrepresented and falsely inflated, and some of which was the product of flat out lies. Such pro-guilt commentators then decided that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder. And such pro-guilt commentators then employed a toxic mixture of tunnel vision and confirmation bias in order to substantiate their belief.

And, what's worse in many ways, such pro-guilt commentators became inexorably wedded to their stated belief in guilt, to the extent that they could/would not consider the case on its merits (or demerits) from that point onwards. It became a case of "Lalalalalala can't hear you! Bloody footprint identical with Sollecito! Mixed blood in the sink! Break in provably staged! Can't prove their innocence! Lalalalalalala fingers in ears!".

 

[acbytesla]

Do you actually know what habeas corpus is? It is a common law principle (hence not applicable in Italy) originating from the Magna Carta. It is not the right to trial. It is the right to bring a detained person before a court. It means that in theory people cannot be 'disappeared' in to jails / gaols by the state, Guantanamo and the the black site prisons of the extraordinary rendition process show that even in a state that recognises habeas corpus but does not recognise human rights the state can find extra-constitutional methods to disappear political prisoners.

ETA
Apparently not mentioned in Magna Carta, but a later development of common law. Just shows the need to fact check. Mea culpa for propagating a common error.

The right of Habeas Corpus is Constitutionally protected right in the US. Your description of it is correct and the way Vixen uses the term is meaningless. I have been ignoring her misuse of the term for a while. But in all fairness to Vixen it is clear that she hasn't been using the term to obfuscate. No, I'm fairly certain she has just been repeating words of another pseudo intellectual in the PGP. But I guess you are right to point out the ignorance.

 

[Matthew Best]

OK, my source was wrong. Fair enough.

Not van der Leek by any chance?

 

[analemma]

Her testimony was strictly limited to specific issues only, such as the calunnia.

That is a LIE.
You know it as well as I do.
She was interrogated on the murder charge by the slut commie bitch who was the Satanic Rites a--hole nutcases "assistant". Remember? The prosecutor lied about the phone call times and tripped up Amanda and her lawyers did not protect her.
Her testimony has been the matter of discussion on many blogs.

 

[TruthCalls]

No. In fact you've got it wrong. ( I hate the term agnostic) people misunderstand these terms. An atheist does not say there is no God only that he doesn't accept any of the claims that there is a god. If you can provide proof of Bhudda, Allah, Zeus or any other God I would be willing to accept it but until you do I will operate under the assumption that there isnt.

An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.This term just confuses people.

I consider myself to be an atheist and an antitheist. Not only do I not believe in a God but believe that theism in all of its incarnations to date is a destructive force.

I respectively disagree. You claim I have it wrong and then repeat exactly what I said.

Put simply, an atheist does not believe in the existence of any gods. Period. No ambiguity. An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves. An agnostic accepts the possibility but believes it not possible to prove either way.

I was born and raised a Catholic but I consider myself agnostic. I firmly believe I am here through millions of years of evolution and when I pass that is it. However, I accept the possibility of a God and therefore try to live my life in a way which I believe God (as I was taught as a child) would want.

 

[TruthCalls]

But this is an intellectually-inappropriate position to take.

Example (deliberately extreme, to illustrate the point): suppose I say to you that I saw a live purple unicorn flying across the sky above my house today. You could choose an agnostic position and say that it's foolish to insist that flying purple unicorns do not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Or you could take a sceptical position along the lines that science and history strongly support a POV that flying purple unicorns do not exist, and that therefore you refuse to accept my belief unless and until you show me (or I find elsewhere) credible, reliable evidence of the existence of flying purple unicorns.

The latter would be the better position to adopt, from an intellectual and metaphysical perspective.

But this is now straying away from the topic of the Knox/Sollecito trials: suffice it to say that this issue has parallels to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - the appropriate and correct position (at all levels: legal, ethical and moral) to adopt is that a person must be presumed innocent of a crime until and unless they are found guilty in a legitimate trial (note that one can be presumed innocent and suspected at the same time.....). And I believe the Italian police and PM, the Massei court, and large sections of the media (as well as the vast majority of pro-guilt commentators) threw away this doctrine in an improper and inappropriate manner during the investigation and trial process of Knox and Sollecito.

I agree with your entire post except the interchanging of God and a Purple Unicorn. A Purple Unicorn, if it exists, is a physical creature that one should be able to see, touch, etc., and therefore to say it is not possible to prove would be incorrect. However, a God does not exist in a physical state. You can not see, touch, etc. a God. It is therefore not possible to ever prove it's existence.

 

[TruthCalls]

They went to trial, as is the defendant's right under habeus corpus, and the onus was on the prosecution for the state (the victim) to present and prove their case. This they did. Verdict :Guilty. Appeal Court; Verdict upheld.

It is in fact, the Supreme Court who dodged due legal process, triggered by the egregious behaviour of Hellmann. Once the pair had been let loose, they weren't going to return.

I find it a never ending source of entertainment how you manage to completely ignore that both Hellmann and Marasca ruled there is no evidence of either of them being involved in the murder. You are so affected by your confirmation bias that I believe it is literally impossible for you to understand why they ruled as they did. Until you open your mind and take off those guilt colored glasses you'll never understand why they were acquitted which, btw, has nothing to do with 'dodging due legal process' or 'egregious behavior'.

 

[andreajo]

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

Here is an article posted on I *********** Love Science that sums up a study on what religious thinking does to the brain: Here's What Belief In A Religion Does To Your Brain.

Their research found that those with religious or spiritual beliefs appeared to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking in order to engage the network for empathetic thinking. Equally, those who were non-religious showed they suppressed their empathetic thinking for analytical thinking.​

To hold religious beliefs, you need faith to allow you to believe the stories that you tell yourself, and the stories that are told inside your group. Faith-based beliefs can be held in the absence of evidence, and in the face of contradictory evidence. To my mind, a couple of the faith stories the PGP tell themselves are:

• The whole all-powerful PR machine story based on the hiring of Gogarty Mariott.
  • Big crazy story based on one small grain of truth.
  • Very handy. Allows one to ignore well-formed evidence-based arguments by experts in their fields just by saying "PR shill" or "Paid liar!"
• The multiple attackers story, enshrined in the results of Rudy Guede's trial process.
  • @ttmon, April 10 2016: <snip>The 'judicial truth' established in Rudy Guede's trial process destroyed Knox and Sollecito's right to a fair trial process'. <snip with link to a video showing prosecutor Mignini>
  • From @soletrader4u, April 11 2016: @tttmon Are you saying that 'judicial truth' is not the real truth, or do you just believe what you want to? #amandaknox
• She was there, lied, covered for Guede & washed Mez's blood from her hands @jack4mk on March 25 2016 and about a million other times.
  • The acquittal becomes a guilty verdict in disguise.

It's not just believing things that have no basis in evidence that I find strange, its believing them utterly and without doubt. IMO people who don't hold strong religious beliefs are free to embrace and explore their doubts, while people of faith are chained to a set of beliefs and get in the habit of squashing any niggling doubt by making up stories to fill in gaps and cover up inconsistencies. Some of the stories in the motivations reports are quite bizarre to those unused to habitually stretching their credulity to accommodate unlikely stories. Like the kitchen knife in the purse story. Or the selective cleaning of incriminating evidence to show why there is no evidence story. Especially the murder for poop story.

Bruno and Marasca criticize Nencini for filling in evidentiary gaps with speculations:

It is, surely, undeniable the interpretative effort displayed by the fact finding judge in order to remedy the unbridgeable investigative gaps and the significant shortfalls of evidence with shrewd speculations and suggestive logical arguments, even if merely assertive and apodictic [dogmatic].Marasca Bruno Motivations (p. 45)​

The point here is, I believe, that wherever one wishes to adopt an empathetic style of thinking rather than an analytical one, that style of reasoning should not be employed in the investigative and judicial process.

Faith is believing what you know ain't so. ~ Mark Twain - Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar​

ETA: To be honest, I don't think anyone on either side believes the murder for poop story.