Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary H: There are tens of thousands of references to the mop with Amanda. However, I cannot back it up with photos, or from the italian courts. I am therefore mistaken as to the mop. How about $50.00 for admitting it? No, haven,t run for the hills. Do sometimes have a life and things to do.
 
Amazer said:
Wouldn't it be easier if you just make your case... provide some evidence to support your claims? That approach will work a lot better for me then this baseless chitter-chatter with no apparent basis in reality.
Click to expand...


She's already told us she has "legitimate, educated experts, professionals and scientists" on her side. You know, like a blog humorist, and ... well ... her.

How much more evidence could you want? That's the group to "be in", dontcha know.
 
capealadin said:
Mary H: There are tens of thousands of references to the mop with Amanda. However, I cannot back it up with photos, or from the italian courts. I am therefore mistaken as to the mop. How about $50.00 for admitting it? No, haven,t run for the hills. Do sometimes have a life and things to do.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your candor and humility, capealadin. As for the $50, I am afraid you will have to settle for virtue being its own reward.:)
 
quadraginta said:
She's already told us she has "legitimate, educated experts, professionals and scientists" on her side. You know, like a blog humorist, and ... well ... her.

How much more evidence could you want? That's the group to "be in", dontcha know.
Click to expand...

No, they're for the science, law and logic. The sex thing you either get or you don't.
 
Mary_H said:
No, they're for the science, law and logic. The sex thing you either get or you don't.
Click to expand...

I don't get it either.... and you are doing a very poor job at convincing me that it plays a role in this case.
 
Mary_H said:
No, they're for the science, law and logic. The sex thing you either get or you don't.
Click to expand...

And they have all the data that Stefanoni's team has?

They were on the ground - i.e. involved in the actual investigation? Not just taking some talking points or whatever information has been spoon fed to them, but actually involved completely in the investigation?


Because the funny thing about that is...that they weren't.


And it's absolutely irrelevant given that while they may be experts in their field, that does not mean they are A) infallible nor B) privy to the entire range of data that has been provided the Defense, Prosecution, and Judges.
 
Amazer said:
I don't get it either.... and you are doing a very poor job at convincing me that it plays a role in this case.
Click to expand...

She's also doing a poor job with her appeals to false authority...

I fear she does not understand how this fallacy works... :(
 
Mary H. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. We,re only human, after all. Candor, yes. Humility? No, just human. Money would have gone to a charity, in any event. Ahh, well.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
And they have all the data that Stefanoni's team has?

They were on the ground - i.e. involved in the actual investigation? Not just taking some talking points or whatever information has been spoon fed to them, but actually involved completely in the investigation?

Because the funny thing about that is...that they weren't.

And it's absolutely irrelevant given that while they may be experts in their field, that does not mean they are A) infallible nor B) privy to the entire range of data that has been provided the Defense, Prosecution, and Judges.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody has all the data Stefanoni's team has because Stefanoni has withheld some of it from them. Why would want to do that? You can read about it here: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/

Everything you say about Stefanoni can be interpreted as a deficit as well as an asset. She certainly WAS privy to the "range of data" provided by the prosecutor -- you know, the data that said, "Find me some DNA, quick!"

The very fact that the lab is run by the state that employs the prosecutor represents a conflict of interest from the word go. Others who have examined what data are available are independent.
 
capealadin said:
Mary H. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. We,re only human, after all. Candor, yes. Humility? No, just human. Money would have gone to a charity, in any event. Ahh, well.
Click to expand...

I will donate to one in your name. And no, not the Amanda Knox Defense Fund.
:)
 
Mary_H said:
Well, nobody has all the data Stefanoni's team has because Stefanoni has withheld some of it from them. Why would want to do that? You can read about it here: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/

Everything you say about Stefanoni can be interpreted as a deficit as well as an asset. She certainly WAS privy to the "range of data" provided by the prosecutor -- you know, the data that said, "Find me some DNA, quick!"

The very fact that the lab is run by the state that employs the prosecutor represents a conflict of interest from the word go. Others who have examined what data are available are independent.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
Fiona said:
http://www.heuni.fi/Etusivu/Publications/HEUNIreports/1198085310872

Hard to find from that link but the report on Italy is by Adelmo Manna
Click to expand...

I have now researched this further and I have conflicting information. That's a shock.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/04/sitroom.03.html

I found several news reports stating that a life sentence in Italy was 30 years.

I added one above. I have also read that life sentences vary but only mob crime and terrorism would go above 30 years.

I also read that Italy was proposing the change from life to 30 years max back in 2007.

Either way, I could have been mistaken on the current law. I have mixed sources.

I believe that Mignini appealed the ruling simply for theatrics. I don't think Mignini will win the appeal. He is also looking for a way to interject himself into the appeal trial in the fall.
 
Bob, do you have the two words "evidence" and "cite" ready to go on word pad so you can just cut and paste them on the thread?

I love that you said that you were in the middle. I am not being sarcastic. I got an honest laugh out of that.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Bob, do you have the two words "evidence" and "cite" ready to go on word pad so you can just cut and paste them on the thread?

I love that you said that you were in the middle. I am not being sarcastic. I got an honest laugh out of that.
Click to expand...

Well, being as all you and Mary have done is provide us with bare assertions, yes...I will continue to ask for evidence.

That's really, after all, the essence of skepticism :)
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Well, being as all you and Mary have done is provide us with bare assertions, yes...I will continue to ask for evidence.

That's really, after all, the essence of skepticism :)
Click to expand...

Are you like shuttlt? He actually has no interest in who killed Meredith. He just loves to pick apart the arguments. He loves to debate.

I know this forum is set up for skeptics so there is nothing wrong with what he does. I am just curious.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Are you like shuttlt? He actually has no interest in who killed Meredith. He just loves to pick apart the arguments. He loves to debate.

I know this forum is set up for skeptics so there is nothing wrong with what he does. I am just curious.
Click to expand...

:)

Of course I like Shuttit. I'm here to do the same thing as he is - pick apart the fallacious arguments.

I believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty - not because I necessarily want to, but because the evidence points towards them and there have been no arguments presented that explain all the evidence (other than a conspiracy...imagine the size of it)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom