Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

Vixen! What do you think the state of this case will be in 30 years?

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen will do anything rather than answer NotEvenWrong's either/or question. This is highly amusing to watch - there is not a response too extraneous......

 

[NotEvenWrong]

As I have said before, of course it is possible for facts found during a modern day trial to be wrong. However, the whole point of a trial is to bring facts to the table. If you miss your chance, the court won't care; it is cold and objective.

Excellent. And you didn't even bring up the history of witchcraft in your response this time. Baby steps!

So, here is a previous thing you wrote:

You do not understand how law works. It's not like ice-skating, where a series of judges hold up their marks.

A fact found, is a fact settled. It doesn't become open to debate to all-comers. It's like Mike's imaginary referee. If he ajudges a goal, penalty or foul, then the 'fact' remains, no matter how controversial.

So now it seems you would agree this is completely incorrect -- it is possible the "facts found" are indeed wrong. And the only way to account for this possibility is for people outside the court (such as professional scientists and/or other interested observers) to analyze the evidence themselves, come to their own conclusions, and critique the logic and arguments presented in the judicial reports. That is the only way for the truth to eventually come out when mistakes are made in the lower courts.

I am not really sure why you keep insisting a C17 kangaroo-style witch trial is of the same substance as a modern day trial in Italy.

Well, for one, both trials invoked paganism at some point. Not that you're keeping track of things like that.

 

[whoanellie]

"Victimise"!? Wow! You made a claim that a judicial truth is somehow preferable to a real-truth, was presented with an example of the Slaem Witch trials to refute that claim, and then started to analyze Wicca and Witches and their philosophy.

Pointing that out is "victimizing" you!?

Yet another cringe-worthy moment.

Poor Vixen

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Williams]

Poor Vixen

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It reminds me of one of our neighbours from a few years ago. (This is apropos to Vixen not seeming to realize that in this forum, we CAN actually read back to how these points develop.)

Their son comes home saying he's being bullied in class. Naturally the parents want to check this out - oblivious to the fact that they are being "played" by their son.

The only thing the son and the teacher can agree on, is that the kid is being held after class. The son calls it bullying, the teacher says, "it's so that he can finish his homework and read back so as to be up to speed on the class."

Poor, poor boy, bullied in class.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course I don't believe in hokum. The point is some people DO. Just because you are an atheist, doesn't mean anyone who is not is a charlatan.

As an example, there was a jazz/rock musician in the 70's, Graham Bond of the GBO, who threw himself in front of a train, after getting into mind battles with a pair of satanists.

To me it is obvious there are forces of good and evil in the world. I guess atheists believe in some kind of anarchy, where everything is due to chance and there is no such thing as an evil person.

Two of my Wicca friends seriously believe they have powers.

Just because your WICCA friends believe they have supernatural powers doesn't mean they do...(And, it's perfectly acceptable for the rest of us to roll our eyes at the suggestion that they do) It's not discrimination. It's experience, it's common sense.

And now back to the point...something you're evading. Just because the Salem judges declared that the Salem defendants to be witches doesn't make them witches.

In the same way, just because a court in Italy declared that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage doesn't make it true. A judicial truth that is bs, will always be bs. Whether that was Galileo or in Salem or in Perugia. So your clinging to "judicial truths" as they are the final word is patently ridiculous.

 

[acbytesla]

As I have said before, of course it is possible for facts found during a modern day trial to be wrong. However, the whole point of a trial is to bring facts to the table. If you miss your chance, the court won't care; it is cold and objective.

I am not really sure why you keep insisting a C17 kangaroo-style witch trial is of the same substance as a modern day trial in Italy.

He asked a simple question. Why won't you answer it? Do you really think all modern trials and their judgments have to be true? Is a judicial truth always the actual truth? Or can they be totally inaccurate?

 

[js202]

Just because your WICCA friends believe they have supernatural powers doesn't mean they do...(And, it's perfectly acceptable for the rest of us to roll our eyes at the suggestion that they do) It's not discrimination. It's experience, it's common sense.

And now back to the point...something you're evading. Just because the Salem judges declared that the Salem defendants to be witches doesn't make them witches.

In the same way, just because a court in Italy declared that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage doesn't make it true. A judicial truth that is bs, will always be bs. Whether that was Galileo or in Salem or in Perugia. So your clinging to "judicial truths" as they are the final word is patently ridiculous.

To be fair, this chapter of the Guilter Handbook (tm) was first authored and dispensed by erstwhile PGP loon "Yummi". Must give, erm, "credit" where credit is due.

 

[acbytesla]

To be fair, this chapter of the Guilter Handbook (tm) was first authored and dispensed by erstwhile PGP loon "Yummi". Must give, erm, "credit" where credit is due.

There is nothing I hate more than this little dance that people do when facing an unpleasant truth. The denial of the obvious as if they think that if they avoid answering the question they've accomplished something. I encounter this when I have discussions about religion all the time or political discussions. Lately, the one's I've been having with Trump supporters mirror these with Vixen. It's as if actual truth is totally irrelevant. They're minds tell them something but they won't admit it.

 

[js202]

There is nothing I hate more than this little dance that people do when facing an unpleasant truth. The denial of the obvious as if they think that if the avoid answering the question they've accomplished something. I encounter this when I have discussions about religion all the time or political discussions. Lately, the one's I've been having with Trump supporters mirror these with Vixen. It's as if actual truth is totally irrelevant. They're minds tell them something but they won't admit it.

Fully concur. There has been a sort of interconnected pathology put on display through PGP commentary on this case that, under the right study conditions, I genuinely believe could produce meaningful sociological results on aberrance.

One subject rests their resoluteness and righteousness on a claimed high IQ and attendant membership in high IQ organizations. Another, on unassailable belief and attendant relentless argumentation on behalf of his inability to be incorrect about any topic, whatsoever. Another puts forth his humble proposition that he is heir to the lineage of Muhammad and Jesus Christ.

One observation I've made over the years I find morbidly fascinating: none of these persons is aware either a) of how nuts their own approach is, any more than b) do they seem aware of how equally nuts each other are. Through their shared belief in Knox's guilt, they triumph over their respective maladies. Such is the main stuff of how cults are formed, I think.

 

[Mike1711]

There is nothing I hate more than this little dance that people do when facing an unpleasant truth. The denial of the obvious as if they think that if they avoid answering the question they've accomplished something. I encounter this when I have discussions about religion all the time or political discussions. Lately, the one's I've been having with Trump supporters mirror these with Vixen. It's as if actual truth is totally irrelevant. They're minds tell them something but they won't admit it.

You raised Trump.

I support his attitude to a serious problem. A different discussion - yes - but to suggest that one can't be pro-Trump, atheist, liberal, and anti-Vixen all in one is wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

You raised Trump.

I support his attitude to a serious problem. A different discussion - yes - but to suggest that one can't be pro-Trump, atheist, liberal, and anti-Vixen all in one is wrong.

It's one thing for Trump to say that our trade agreements are not fair to us. It's one thing for Trump to say that uncontrolled immigration poses a threat to the economic well being of many workers. But Trump takes it too far. He makes racist remarks and changes his position every 5 minutes. He is the crudest, rudest, most misogynistic sexist, self centered a-hole ever. He is not thoughtful EVER. The man is a con-man who only thinks about himself. He is no more concerned about the well being of the poor and middle class in the US then he was about the well being of Trump University students.

Why would you trust a man with his track record to be honorable in any way? The man has been sued more than 3500 times. Most for not paying his bills. Trump has employed a nasty tactic dealing with vendors and contractors throughout the years which is refusing to pay the bill unless a vendor agrees to lower the agreed upon price. Extend him Net 15 and he'll take Net 60 and then will insist you lower your bill if you want to be paid at all. And often you have to sue him to get paid at all. He'll then make it all your fault alleging that your work was substandard. Or he'll plead poverty and threaten to declare bankruptcy or declare bankruptcy which he has 4 times. Trump in New York/New Jersey is not only famous, he's notorious.

He has suggested that we act this way as a nation. How long do you think that the US can keep its AAA credit rating when the President is telling the world they have to accept less?

He never thinks about what he says, he just opens it and vomits his unformed rants all over us. He calls everybody "stupid". Who does that? I wouldn't want a friend like that, let alone the President of the United States.

 

[Mike1711]

It's one thing for Trump to say that our trade agreements are not fair to us. It's one thing for Trump to say that uncontrolled immigration poses a threat to the economic well being of many workers. But Trump takes it too far. He makes racist remarks and changes his position every 5 minutes. He is the crudest, rudest, most misogynistic sexist, self centered a-hole ever. He is not thoughtful EVER. The man is a con-man who only thinks about himself. He is no more concerned about the well being of the poor and middle class in the US as he was about the well being of Trump University students.

Why would you trust a man with his track record to be honorable in any way? The man has been sued more than 3500 times. Most for not paying his bills. Trump has employed a nasty tactic dealing with vendors and contractors throughout the years which is refusing to pay the bill unless a vendor agrees to lower the agreed upon price. Extend him Net 15 and he'll take Net 60 and then will insist you lower your bill if you want to be paid at all. And often you have to sue him to get paid at all. He'll then make it all your fault alleging that your work was substandard. Trump in New York/New Jersey is not only famous, he's notorious.

He has suggested that we act this way as a nation. How long do you think that the US can keep its AAA credit rating when the President is telling the world they have to accept less?

I'm atheist.
Evolutionist.
Progressive.
Liberal.
Conservative.
A hatful of oxymorons...
...and I defend the right of anybody to have ANY opinion as long as it's non-violent.

I am no expert in the field of US politics but it is my opinion that H R Clinton is not great. Benghazi is, and will forever be, her nemesis.

I agree, Trump is a notorious (is that the correct word??) person, ...in the same way that Churchill would have been were it not for his success in WW2. When you need to remove a cancer it's better to choose the best surgeon not the most pleasant one.

I am very familiar with property development. It's my chosen field, having qualified as a quantity surveyor (a UK derived profession not commonly known in the USA) specializing in arbitration, project management and property development. It's common practice for developers to "screw" sub-contractors but let's not be blind to the other side of the coin. A lot of sub-contractors bleat about non-payment after their poor performance. Whether Trump is a hard businessman/property developer or a lying thief I don't know. My guess is that it's a bit if both. But Trump's failings recede way into the distance compared to Clinton.

What I do know is this. The western world desperately needs a strong leader to take us from the brink of self implosion. Is Trump that man? I don't know but I do know this. In a two horse race between Trump and Clinton it's a no brainer. Clinton is useless, which leaves us with Hobson's choice.

This could well describe Sir Winston Churchill.

 

[Pacal]

Pacal, thanks for your input. I did try to put C17 into context for NotEvenWrong but was told to desist from 'a historical diatribe'. The thing is, whether we scoff or not, Wiccans take their beliefs very seriously indeed; for them it is a lifestyle, and they have outdoor Wiccan weddings, etc. We are tolerant of civil partnerships, but to deny that Witches are/were serious people is equally intolerant - and they have always been there throughout history (John Dee, Madame Blavatsky, Aleister Crowley, and even JJ Tolkein based his Lord of the Rings on Finnish folk myth [The Silmarillion]) Thus, it is not possible to say 'it is untrue any of the Salem defendants were witches'.

We have to remember that in 1620's-commencing early colonisation of the East Coast America, the first settlers were a mix of (a) venturists - company men, there to make money, (b) transported prisoners, (c) supporters of the executed Charles II - the losing Cavaliers against the puritan Roundheads (Oliver Cromwell himself banned all festivities, including Christmas) (d) other political dissenters, such as the Levellers (e) a huge military presence to fight off the French [the Redcoats] and, not least, (f) a very large body of Puritan Christians who came over over with the Mayflower. William Penn, an eminent Quaker (puritan) founded the famous Mason-Dixon line in Pennsylvannia, after which he was named (North and South Carolina being named after Charles, whose supporters were known as Carolinians - the latinised form of his name). In addition to all this, there were regular scuffles with the native Amerindians, who embarked on regular scalping raids on Georgetown (_?), one of the earliest towns, Virginia.

Thus the background of the Salem trials is within a landscape of great danger, Puritan priggishness and extreme austere values, kangaroo-style courts and a relatively barbaric community. Having had to leave their homeland in England under conditions of great persecution, yes, they were exceedingly paranoid about anyone not following their rigid codes of behaviour and faith.

To our C21 eyes, the Salem witch trials seems absurd and preposterous, and of course, the courts were not courts as we know them today.

So to ask, is it a judicial truth the witches tried at Salem were really witches, is not to ask a like-for-like analogy to the Kercher case.

For a start, no-one has accused Amanda of being a witch, apart from some barrister-style theatrical rhetoric from Patrick's counsel, Pascali (_sp?) who called Amanda a 'Lucifinera' she-devil. I doubt he meant it literally, but rather, as a metaphorical flourish.

Contrary to your statement "it is not possible to say 'it is untrue any of the Salem defendants were witches'." it is indeed possible to say that none of the Salem Defendants were Witches. Just read up about the farce of justice that the trials were. The absolutely idiotic "evidence" used to convict the accused. Even at the time the absolutely silly but lethal nature of the trials was well known. In the aftermath of the trials the accused, including those executed were exonerated and compensation paid to survivors. So even the authorities at the time thought the trials were a horrible joke. Also if by "Witch" you mean a practitioner of Wicca or the made up diabolic religion concocted by the Witch Hunters in Salem then it is nearly certain that none of the accused "Witches" were in fact "Witches". If you mean some of them may have practiced "folk magic" or been superstitious to would suspect a majority would have done one of the two from time to time. After all throwing salt over your shoulder to ward off the Devil is "folk magic".

The idea that John Dee was a "Witch" "Warlock" is amusing and promoted by some Wicca enthusiasts, it is also false. John Dee was a rather addled Astrologer, who some of the credulous took for a Wizard. As for Madame Blavatsky. Well if you think Theosophy is "Witchcraft", good for you. It isn't.

The bottom line is that Wicca is a modern faith that owes a lot to "folk magic" and cleaned up versions of the ravings of the Witch Hunters it almost certainly did not exist in the 17th century. Thus there were "witches" in the sense of practitioners of the Witch Religion no where except in the minds of the Witch Hunters. What there was were superstitious people some of whom practiced "folk magic" which is not the Witch religion.

I would also like to repeat that the various judicial and other authorities in Massachusetts after the events in Salem eventually cleared the accused and those put to death.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm atheist. Evolutionist. Progressive. Liberal. Conservative. A hatful of oxymorons... ...and I defend the right of anybody to have ANY opinion as long as it's non-violent.
I am no expert in the field of US politics but it is my opinion that H R Clinton is not great. Benghazi is, and will forever be, her nemesis.

I agree, Trump is a notorious (is that the correct word??) person, ...in the same way that Churchill would have been were it not for his success in WW2. When you need to remove a cancer it's better to choose the best surgeon not the most pleasant one.

I am very familiar with property development. It's my chosen field, having qualified as a quantity surveyor (a UK derived profession not commonly known in the USA) specializing in arbitration, project management and property development. It's common practice for developers to "screw" sub-contractors but let's not be blind to the other side of the coin. A lot of sub-contractors bleat about non-payment after their poor performance. Whether Trump is a hard businessman/property developer or a lying thief I don't know. My guess is that it's a bit if both. But Trump's failings recede way into the distance compared to Clinton.

What I do know is this. The western world desperately needs a strong leader to take us from the brink of self implosion. Is Trump that man? I don't know but I do know this. In a two horse race between Trump and Clinton it's a no brainer. Clinton is useless, which leaves us with Hobson's choice.

This could well describe Sir Winston Churchill.

I'm all those things too Mike. Trump can run his mouth as much as anyone. Actually, he runs it more. But that doesn't make him qualified to be President. Churchill was an ahole, but he never spent a lifetime as a con man. There is a difference between being a hard tough business man and being a cheat which is what Trump is

HRC could lose this election, but it won't be because of Benghazi. Did you watch the hearings when the Republican committee tried embarrass her? She made them look like partisan hacks.

I don't underestimate Trump. He knows how to con people. He's been doing it his whole life. I also wouldn't underestimate HRC. She isn't the politician her husband Bill was but she's no hack.

 

[Mike1711]

I'm all those things too Mike. Trump can run his mouth as much as anyone. Actually, he runs it more. But that doesn't make him qualified to be President. Churchill was an ahole, but he never spent a lifetime as a con man. There is a difference between being a hard tough business man and being a cheat which is what Trump is

HRC could lose this election, but it won't be because of Benghazi. Did you watch the hearings when the Republican committee tried embarrass her? She made them look like partisan hacks.

I don't underestimate Trump. He knows how to con people. He's been doing it his whole life. I also wouldn't underestimate HRC. She isn't the politician her husband Bill was but she's no hack.

To a great extent I agree with you. Perhaps I am at heart an anarchist.

Essentially the world lacks leadership. I think it's to do with fence sitting PC correct posturing. Obama is a classic case. He speaks forever and says nothing.

Back to the point...

On this site there is no greater liar than:-

Verbose
Ignorant
X-rated
Eejit
Nonsensical

 

[acbytesla]

To a great extent I agree with you. Perhaps I am at heart an anarchist.

Essentially the world lacks leadership. I think it's to do with fence sitting PC correct posturing. Obama is a classic case. He speaks forever and says nothing.

Back to the point...

On this site there is no greater liar than:-

Verbose
Ignorant
X-rated
Eejit
Nonsensical

You live in the UK Mike. It's a very different animal politically. Unbeknownst to most people, the President doesn't have much power..unless he has a Congress that supports his policies. Our system is designed for gridlock. If a President has a Congress that is committed to work with him, he can accomplish a lot, if not it's close to impossible to get much done.

And outside of Obama's first 2 years, he's had to deal with a hostile Congress and a right wing court. You also can't comprehend with your health care system over there how big a victory the Affordable Healthcare Act was.

I don't think Obama has got much done in the last 8 years. In fact, it's pathetic. Still I think it's better than George W. Bush and his policies. I also don't blame Obama because I'm a realist. I also think little will get done if HRC is elected and she has to deal with a GOP Congress. Trump on the other hand scares the hell out of me.

Out of curiosity Mike, what do you think of Brexit?

 

[Mike1711]

K

You live in the UK Mike. It's a very different animal politically. Unbeknownst to most people, the President doesn't have much power..unless he has a Congress that supports his policies. Our system is designed for gridlock. If a President has a Congress that is committed to work with him, he can accomplish a lot, if not it's close to impossible to get much done.

And outside of Obama's first 2 years, he's had to deal with a hostile Congress and a right wing court. You also can't comprehend with your health care system over there how big a victory the Affordable Healthcare Act was.

I don't think Obama has got much done in the last 8 years. In fact, it's pathetic. Still I think it's better than George W. Bush and his policies. I also don't blame Obama because I'm a realist. I also think little will get done if HRC is elected and she has to deal with a GOP Congress. Trump on the other hand scares the hell out of me.

Out of curiosity Mike, what do you think of Brexit?

Sadly I live in South Africa. A dreadful corrupt and futureless country.

I have family living in the UK and quite a few UK friends. The EU is dysfunctional. Uncontrolled immigration is hugely problematic.

The UK was well advised to leave and it's excellent that it has.

The EU may well relinquish some it's powers because if they don't over time other countries will leave.

Economically the UK won't hurt in the long term, but short term turmoil will be a challenge.

The most interesting aspect of the "In" side is how the younger generation seem to refuse to accept the result. It's anathema to be liberal and anti-democratic, but perhaps they're too young, too stupid, or too arrogant to understand the oxymoron of a liberal protesting to, in effect, overturn democracy.

 

[Planigale]

K

Sadly I live in South Africa. A dreadful corrupt and futureless country.

I have family living in the UK and quite a few UK friends. The EU is dysfunctional. Uncontrolled immigration is hugely problematic.

The UK was well advised to leave and it's excellent that it has.

The EU may well relinquish some it's powers because if they don't over time other countries will leave.

Economically the UK won't hurt in the long term, but short term turmoil will be a challenge.

The most interesting aspect of the "In" side is how the younger generation seem to refuse to accept the result. It's anathema to be liberal and anti-democratic, but perhaps they're too young, too stupid, or too arrogant to understand the oxymoron of a liberal protesting to, in effect, overturn democracy.

Now i am over 30, perhaps I cannot speak for the young. but as one of the remain voters, We at least knew what we voted for. we probably remembered the instructions from exams 'read the question, answer the question'. So many of the people who voted leave say things like 'a vote to remain was a vote to support David Cameron, and I could'nt vote for that posh twat'. The labour party really failed to get over the message that the socialist / internationalist option was to vote remain.

There is a tradition of repeat referenda on the EU.

Whilst it would be an expensive process I would argue that before final separation when there is still an option to remain in the EU say summer 2018 there should be another referendum, when one knows what the final deal looks like.

 

[acbytesla]

Now i am over 30, perhaps I cannot speak for the young. but as one of the remain voters, We at least knew what we voted for. we probably remembered the instructions from exams 'read the question, answer the question'. So many of the people who voted leave say things like 'a vote to remain was a vote to support David Cameron, and I could'nt vote for that posh twat'. The labour party really failed to get over the message that the socialist / internationalist option was to vote remain.

There is a tradition of repeat referenda on the EU.

Whilst it would be an expensive process I would argue that before final separation when there is still an option to remain in the EU say summer 2018 there should be another referendum, when one knows what the final deal looks like.

I'm a big believer in democratic ideals. But is it still a valid election if it was based on deception?

I'm speaking of the ad campaign suggesting that the British contribution to the EU would go to fund the NHS was a false promise. I've been reading there is a possibility that article 50 may never be invoked. Anyway, it's interesting to watch your system at work.