• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheDonkey said:
Really? So you have a cite where I've ignored evidence I didn't like to support my foregone conclusion?

Didn't think so. Please knock off the personal attacks.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I suffer from confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

See what I mean katy?:rolleyes:

No one made a personal attack on you, sorry.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I will not assist in this derail. The evidence needs to be addressed in it's entirety. What you're asking is akin to the creationist "look at the eyeball, without looking at any other pieces of evidence, and tell me if you agree that it is designed". That's a fallacious argument to begin with.
Click to expand...
Not at all: what I'm trying to clear up is where exactly we disagree. If you agree with my argument that if we were to look at the shoe/footprint evidence in isolation our logical conclusion would be that one person probably made all the prints, or certainly that that couldn't be ruled out, then your reason for thinking that didn't happen obviously lies elsewhere. Presumably with your belief that the evidence proves there's multiple attackers? Fair enough; let's address that then.

Or are you saying that the shoe/footprints are themselves evidence that there were multiple attackers, which therefore proves that the shoe/footprints were left by multiple attackers? Because that's rather circular logic...

There are footprints from Amanda and Raffaele, are there not? There is evidence that more than one person attacked Meredith, is there not? There is evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved, is there not?

This is, again, pure sophistry coming from your side. Let's discuss what evidence we have - all of it - rather than limiting ourselves to just that which you feel could support your argument.
Click to expand...
But don't you see that if you are going to say the 'fact' there were multiple attackers makes it more likely the shoe/footprints were left by multiple attackers - which I agree with, by the way - we first need to establish whether or not there *were* multiple attackers? I know you think there were, but I disagree - hence, our disagreement is about this issue, not the footprints themselves.
 
katy_did said:
On another topic, I asked a little while back if anyone knew whether Meredith's wallet was ever found (as opposed to her bag, which was on the bed). I've never read anything about her empty wallet being found in any of the reports, so I don't think it was.

The reason I was asking is that there was some discussion a while back as to why Rudy would've taken the credit cards, since they could be traced to Meredith. It's a fair point, although we probably shouldn't draw too many conclusions from what would have been a split-second decision anyway (if he did take it). But perhaps he didn't take her 'cards and cash' separately, as we've been assuming. Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense if he just swiped her wallet?
Click to expand...

Do we know that Meredith even used a wallet?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
You, sir, did.

But, hey, I can dig it (get it? punny, huh?).


Regardless, you are making unsupported claims regarding my position here. Please back them up or withdraw them.
Click to expand...

No they are completely supported, and it's your own circular logic that defeats you. :rolleyes:
 
katy_did said:
The reason I was asking is that there was some discussion a while back as to why Rudy would've taken the credit cards, since they could be traced to Meredith. It's a fair point, although we probably shouldn't draw too many conclusions from what would have been a split-second decision anyway (if he did take it). But perhaps he didn't take her 'cards and cash' separately, as we've been assuming. Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense if he just swiped her wallet?
Click to expand...

Where was it ever established that RG did this?
 
stilicho said:
Of course you conveniently omit his restrictions on the validity of his own opinion. Unlike Mark and Chris, Greggy understands very well that forensic science may be validated by courts, and that it is impossible to make a scientific assessment from an ocean away:

"Every new form of scientific evidence has its first birthday in a courtroom if it can be shown to be valid. But in this case, what I perceive from a continent away is that Dr. Stefanoni pulled out all stops to get results."

And

"I totally agree with Nikki's comments on Dr. Stefanoni's scientific ingenuity- she pushed the boundaries of the PCR instrument outward and was successful in her final attempt to nail the murderess. She deserves praise and recognition by her scientific peers. Now Dr. Stefanoni needs to compare, validate, and publish her PCR protocol so others can confirm it and use it when there is still enough crime scene material left to do more than one analysis."

Not that Greggy is going to be produced as an expert by either side but he is clearly arguing not that Stefanoni's "research project" was invalid but that it should not have been used if there was a risk that the court would be deceived by the defence experts. He is not calling Stefanoni's work "her own special technique", which implies an unscientific approach performed outside of the scientific realm. She wasn't performing a magic trick.

I think it's important for you and your readers to understand that Greggy's objections are considerable different that those of Mark and Chris.
Click to expand...

Greggy's position as a scientist on the knife evidence is very clear: he thinks it should never have been admitted, because Stefanoni used a brand new technique and produced absolutely no evidence to show it works. He says himself there is a separation between his belief, as an individual, that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and his professional opinion as a scientist. I'm interested in the latter, not the former (except in so far as his belief in their guilt should make his doubts about the knife evidence even more striking).

I don't think Greggy's professional position is far removed from Chris and Mark's positions at all. In fact, what he said in his posts made Mark's argument much clearer to me. As Mark says, this wasn't LCN - with all its attendant controversies - this was worse. I didn't fully grasp that fact until I read Greggy's posts; up until then, I'd thought the big issue was LCN itself, but there's much more to it than that. Mark and Greggy say exactly the same thing (admittedly coloured in each case by their views as individuals as to Knox/Sollecito's guilt, the use of cute little nicknames like AK47 and so on).
 
stilicho said:
Where was it ever established that RG did this?
Click to expand...
Separate argument. I was addressing the valid point made a while ago by a couple of posters, Shuttlt and Fulcanelli from memory, who said that Rudy would not have taken the cards because they could be traced to him. If he swiped the wallet, taking the cards (inadvertently) would be a great deal more understandable.
 
katy_did said:
Not at all: what I'm trying to clear up is where exactly we disagree. If you agree with my argument that if we were to look at the shoe/footprint evidence in isolation our logical conclusion would be that one person probably made all the prints, or certainly that that couldn't be ruled out, then your reason for thinking that didn't happen obviously lies elsewhere. Presumably with your belief that the evidence proves there's multiple attackers? Fair enough; let's address that then.

Or are you saying that the shoe/footprints are themselves evidence that there were multiple attackers, which therefore proves that the shoe/footprints were left by multiple attackers? Because that's rather circular logic...
Click to expand...
Well, no, it's not. I don't base my belief on multiple attackers on the footprints. There is much other evidence that multiple people were involved. The footprints appear to agree with this.

The contrary position, that there was a single attacker, requires us to ignore pieces of evidence - including footprints. In fact, you yourself have claimed that the footprints must have come from only Rudy because you don't believe there was more than one attacker - that is a conclusion based on a false premise.

I know, I know...you don't believe the lone attacker is a false premise. However, to reach that premise, one must ignore other pieces of evidence. This is the problem with the FoA approach to the case - simply ignore or sling generalized mud at the evidence we don't like, and then posit our conclusion based on those false premises.

Sure, if one ignores all evidence involving multiple attackers, it's easy to make everything else match - but then we're ignoring evidence.
 
katy_did said:
Separate argument. I was addressing the valid point made a while ago by a couple of posters, Shuttlt and Fulcanelli from memory, who said that Rudy would not have taken the cards because they could be traced to him. If he swiped the wallet, taking the cards (inadvertently) would be a great deal more understandable.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But, again, do we have evidence/quote that Meredith used a wallet?

I don't. I know my gf doesn't always (often not, in fact). I don't know that it's a foregone conclusion that she carried a wallet, nor that if she did, the wallet was taken by Rudy. Again, even if the wallet is agreed to be missing - it's just that, missing. We don't know who took it. And while if we assume that Rudy was the only attacker, it's easy to assume Rudy took the wallet - we're making an assumption that ignores quite a bit of evidence.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Why shouldn't he state or believe Barbie to be objective? Perhaps you can support your claim that she isn't with something other then an assertion.
Click to expand...
Oh come now, Fulcanelli. Barbie isn't objective because she makes her opinion clear in her writing. Without going off to read more articles by her, which I have no particular wish to do, one example from memory is in her write-up of Amanda's testimony in court. She begins by telling the reader that suspects in Italian courts are allowed, nay expected, to lie. She introduces that little fact to subtly suggest to the reader that Amanda was lying. It's not rocket science. And it's not objective.

Her writing is very slanted to her belief that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Nothing wrong with that, or at least nothing wrong with it as long as the facts she uses to support that belief are accurate. Unfortunately, in her book, many of her facts are really speculations presented as facts. You still haven't answered the question as to whether Candace makes any equally grave errors. I'll take that as a no.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Fair enough. But, again, do we have evidence/quote that Meredith used a wallet?

I don't. I know my gf doesn't always (often not, in fact). I don't know that it's a foregone conclusion that she carried a wallet, nor that if she did, the wallet was taken by Rudy. Again, even if the wallet is agreed to be missing - it's just that, missing. We don't know who took it. And while if we assume that Rudy was the only attacker, it's easy to assume Rudy took the wallet - we're making an assumption that ignores quite a bit of evidence.
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't been mentioned that Meredith had a wallet - it just occurred to me, I guess, that it would be very unlikely that she kept her credit cards loose in her bag. I would think she almost certainly had a wallet to keep her cards in, at least, and probably kept her money in the same wallet (more usual for women, since they don't always have pockets to keep spare change etc in).

So if her cards were taken, and there was no mention of an empty wallet being found, it seems a fair assumption that the person who took them just stole the wallet, rather than taking the cards and money individually as we (or I, at any rate) have always assumed.

As to who could have taken it, I guess that's something we'd discuss once we know whether or not her wallet was stolen! I would argue though that it puts a slightly different slant on the possibility of Rudy taking it, if it is indeed her wallet that was stolen.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Well, no, it's not. I don't base my belief on multiple attackers on the footprints. There is much other evidence that multiple people were involved. The footprints appear to agree with this.

The contrary position, that there was a single attacker, requires us to ignore pieces of evidence - including footprints. In fact, you yourself have claimed that the footprints must have come from only Rudy because you don't believe there was more than one attacker - that is a conclusion based on a false premise.

I know, I know...you don't believe the lone attacker is a false premise. However, to reach that premise, one must ignore other pieces of evidence. This is the problem with the FoA approach to the case - simply ignore or sling generalized mud at the evidence we don't like, and then posit our conclusion based on those false premises.

Sure, if one ignores all evidence involving multiple attackers, it's easy to make everything else match - but then we're ignoring evidence.
Click to expand...

OK... So the footprints are themselves evidence that there were multiple attackers?

In that case you can't use the fact there were multiple attackers to argue that the prints were made by multiple attackers, can you? Since your reason for believing the multiple attacker theory is the footprints themselves. As I said, very circular logic.
 
The evidence of multiple attackers is said to come from the injuries on Meredith's body, so far as I know. The fact that there are footprints of different sizes tends to confirm it. The fact that Guede's footprints go straight out the door without a pause indicates that he did not lock the door. That means someone else did and again supports the idea that more than one person was involved. The fact that those footprints were bloody suggests that he did not wash his shoes and indeed tends to suggest he did not remove them: therefore the presence of bare footprints also indicates more than one person is involved. I do not see anything circular there. You need not accept those things or the interepretation of them, but it is not a flawed argument unless I am missing something
 
katy_did said:
On another topic, I asked a little while back if anyone knew whether Meredith's wallet was ever found (as opposed to her bag, which was on the bed). I've never read anything about her empty wallet being found in any of the reports, so I don't think it was.

The reason I was asking is that there was some discussion a while back as to why Rudy would've taken the credit cards, since they could be traced to Meredith. It's a fair point, although we probably shouldn't draw too many conclusions from what would have been a split-second decision anyway (if he did take it). But perhaps he didn't take her 'cards and cash' separately, as we've been assuming. Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense if he just swiped her wallet?
Click to expand...
That makes ALOT of sense, katy_did.

We had a guy use a stolen credit card awhile back at my work, and when he was asked for ID, the guy just pulled out the wallet and showed the persons ID, which kinda looked like him at a quick glance. So the cashier ran the credit card and the guy then left. For my own reasons, I was suspicious of the transaction, so I had another employee quickly dump the garbage and write down the car's license plate. It turned out to be a stolen credit card and since we had the car's license #, he was traced and busted a short time later. The cops came in with photographs of the person and a few others to see if we could ID the suspect. The 2 employees picked him out quickly.
Point is, the guy was breaking and entering and stealing the whole wallet, not the cards...

Personally, all the gals I have ever dated keep their credit cards in a wallet, inside a purse. So it makes ALOT more sense that the whole wallet was stolen, instead of someone opening it and just taking the cards...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
I have already asked about this because I do not know if the word "purse" was used in the british or the american sense. I assume the latter but I do not know. Does anyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom