• 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.
capealadin said:
Forget the open-mindedness and fair representation excuse, LJ. You can,t *provide* because you can,t. Admit it, in all fairness.
Click to expand...

I can't provide a "woman" - you're absolutely right. But I COULD provide a witness whose testimony was accepted by the court in the trial. But then again, I don't want to bother, because - as I've already said - I'm sick and tired of trying to conduct decent arguments against people who make up the rules of fair argument as they go along.

Incidentally, I just had a little sashay over to one of the other case-related sites (Hint, it's not the one that Fulcanelli "moderates"). I saw a long - and extremely pejorative - article that pulled no punches in linking Sollecito's knife fascination/collection with a propensity for violent crime. Some of the language used to describe the knives in his collection is absolutely choice. Much of it has been lifted from the knife-manufacturers' rubric, and is clearly included in the "article" to associate Sollecito (whether overtly or subliminally) with violent use of such weapons against other people.

Hmmmmm. Fair? Balanced? Anyone? Anyone.....? Bueller.....? :p

Oh and PS: What I'm about to say isn't intended as a personal attack or any form of condescension, but only because it sometimes makes your posts hard to read: Apostrophes (i.e. "raised commas") are used to signify possessives or missing letters (e.g. "it's a nice day"; "Mignini's hair was lustrous"). Commas are used to separate clauses within sentences (e.g. "I went to the shop, but it was closed).
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Good question. The locked door only takes me to 70% / 75%, but if I'm on that jury and I'm 75% sure she did it. I vote Guilty. I wonder how many others would do the same.

The thing is, I may not agree with everything the prosecutor says or the defence is saying, but as a member of the jury, I have to vote as I myself have viewed the evidence.

I'm the type of person though, that is almost never 100% sure of anything.
Click to expand...

Woah! If you told a trial judge in a criminal case that you - as a juror - were 75% certain of guilt (and therefore by definition 25% certain of non-guilt), then I am absolutely CERTAIN that a judge would instruct you firmly to acquit.

The whole point of "guilt" - as it's defined in a criminal trial - is that there is literally NO room for ANY "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a jury. As I've previously posted, this means that there should be no doubt based on alternatives that a "reasonable" person could consider to be a possibility. So if you're a reasonable person (in the sense that you don't believe in clearly impossible theories or possibilities), then actually anything less that 100% belief in guilt warrants a vote to acquit.

If anyone still doesn't understand the actual meaning of the term "guilt beyond reasonable doubt", they should look up some jurisprudence literature or talk to a criminal judge. Either of these sources will confirm what I've just written.
 
Hi, Sherlock. I follow your reasoning. Perhaps that anything well over 50% either way. For myself, I would want to be 90%.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ummmmmmm.........

Notwithstanding the fact that I found this quite difficult to read, I believe that (for one reason or another...) you might have misunderstood what I had written. The "public record" of which I spoke was directly related to the actual trial court proceedings. This doesn't (and never did) require any form of "filtering" by any media outlet. The trial transcripts were and are directly available.
Click to expand...


Cop out. I don't believe you. Cites linked to primary sources in this discussion are pretty rare, and I haven't seen any from you. Are you claiming that you have read all the trial transcripts? Are you claiming that none of your opinions are based on media sources?


However, as an aside, the media COULD - in the specific instance of court reporting - be relied upon to accurately reflect what had happened in the courtroom. To do otherwise could (and would) have been seen as a contempt of court - and one which would be extraordinarily simple to prove. So newspapers and TV pretty much ALWAYS cover court proceedings with strict levels of accuracy.
Click to expand...


That's a joke. I have trouble taking anyone seriously who can make a statement like that. If you really believe that you must be remarkably naive, but I don't think that you do.

We have seminal Supreme Court decisions (see Sheppard v. Maxwell for one example) based almost wholly on the common recognition that your assertion is wrong.

What's funny about this is that one of the earliest and loudest arguments made by Knox apologists concerning the trial was that the jury was negatively influenced by all of the distorted and prejudicial media coverage.

It's tough to have it both ways.

I believe that in your argument to me (which of course in no way involves a man constructed from the dried stalks of cereal plants), you've contended that I'm referring to ANALYSIS of the case, rather than factual reporting of the trial itself. If that was your interpretation of my position, then you were wrong.
Click to expand...


I'll bet you were wizard at dodge-ball.

Judging from what I've read here it really doesn't matter what someone's opinion of the case is. If they have decided to choose a "side" then all of the press coverage was completely accurate ... except for whatever parts they disagree with. Those parts were utterly wrong. And malignant. :rolleyes:

I'm not talking about "ANALYSIS", I'm talking about coverage. You know ... reporting. You're insinuating now that your opinions are based on your own perusal of primary sources and not on the media reporting of those sources. I don't believe you.
 
LondonJohn said:
Woah! If you told a trial judge in a criminal case that you - as a juror - were 75% certain of guilt (and therefore by definition 25% certain of non-guilt), then I am absolutely CERTAIN that a judge would instruct you firmly to acquit.

The whole point of "guilt" - as it's defined in a criminal trial - is that there is literally NO room for ANY "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a jury. As I've previously posted, this means that there should be no doubt based on alternatives that a "reasonable" person could consider to be a possibility. So if you're a reasonable person (in the sense that you don't believe in clearly impossible theories or possibilities), then actually anything less that 100% belief in guilt warrants a vote to acquit.

If anyone still doesn't understand the actual meaning of the term "guilt beyond reasonable doubt", they should look up some jurisprudence literature or talk to a criminal judge. Either of these sources will confirm what I've just written.
Click to expand...


Let me put this another way, in this case, the broken window, I see no proof one way or the other on who did it, it could have been Rudy, it could have been RS/Amanda, 50 / 50. I don't believe the room was trashed, just messy, 90 / 10 but I am 99% sure Rudy did not lock that door when he left, and I can not picture anyone else other than RS/Amanda doing it, but if they did it, then that window is 99% done by them as well because Rudy wouldn't have done it if he came in with Amanda.

I also can't convict RS/Amanda only on the fact that Rudy did not lock that door so I have to look at other things as well, including her cartwheels for example, her false conviction and on and on

Yes, I would convict someone on 75%, because 75% certainty for me is 100% in others, 95% in some and so on. 75% for me is beyound resaonable doubt, but there should be some resonable doubt in everyone.
 
capealadin said:
Hi, Sherlock. I follow your reasoning. Perhaps that anything well over 50% either way. For myself, I would want to be 90%.
Click to expand...


And, me and you could agree on everthing, but you say 90% and I say 70%, if you know what I mean.

Bruce Fisher seems 100% sure she's innocent, while Fulcanelli is the exact opposite. Imagine both on the jury, both looking at the same evidence, both being so far off from one another.

To me, if I'm 75% sure she's guilty, I have to convict, regardless what the judge has told me, I have to live with my verdict and have to feel I made the right choice.
 
Yes, we would probably come to an unanimous verdict, as did the jury in this case. I don,t believe Fulcanelli says 100%, but rather that the preponderous of evidence leads him to a guilty verdict. I can,t speak of somene else though, but that's the conclusion I have come to.
 
BTW, Sherlock, I quess it is subjective. What is reasonable to one person can be different to someone else. I don,t think the law does it by percentage in any event. What one is comfortable with, being more sure than not.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Let me put this another way, in this case, the broken window, I see no proof one way or the other on who did it, it could have been Rudy, it could have been RS/Amanda, 50 / 50. I don't believe the room was trashed, just messy, 90 / 10 but I am 99% sure Rudy did not lock that door when he left, and I can not picture anyone else other than RS/Amanda doing it, but if they did it, then that window is 99% done by them as well because Rudy wouldn't have done it if he came in with Amanda.
Click to expand...

That's the challenge facing a prosecutor in any case.

I don't know which way I'd vote because I haven't seen all the evidence. My certainty here is that Italian law enforcement and justice system did a good job in the face of substantial obstacles. I have to add that reasonable doubt must extend equally to all three of the accused. I believe that if you want to make excuses for evidence pointing to RS and AK that you have to do the same thing for evidence indicating RG. That includes everything from the confused statements (ie. lies) to the forensics. It's all on the table for our idle speculation or none of it is.
 
Hi, Odeed. Yes, I was referring to your post. I see what you mean. BTW, Talking about that lamp. I wonder how Amanda hopped, boogied to her room and back with the lamp in the way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom