Oh man, this is beginning to read like a damned script it's so predictable. No wonder so many other rational posters have abandoned this thread to the Knox supporters; this stuff is just so tedious....anyway, let's see if we can sort through this and find something that isn't simply some unsupported opinion stated as fact.
I'm responding directly to the points you made, which consist entirely of moles that have already been whacked. It's not exactly reasonable to complain that I'm following a script under those circumstances: old arguments will be met with old counter-arguments. What else did you expect?
Nope, nothing in the above...
I'm responding directly to your
opinion that the large number of prosecution talking points add up to a solid case if you look at them all at once, with my
opinion (backed up by the field of study called "logic") that they do not in fact do so because each individually is questionable, and no number of individually questionable pieces of evidence add up to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Once again it's not exactly reasonable to state your opinion, then dismiss the response because it's an opinion. Especially when it's not strictly a matter of opinion whether or not a lot of inconclusive arguments add up to a conclusive argument - they don't.
Nor here. (In fact, nothing really specifically relevant to the case at all.)
Once again I'm directly responding to your
opinion that it is in principle implausible for the police to have been out to get AK and RS, with the
fact that this is a well-known and well-documented way for erroneous prosecutions to happen. Dismissing this as non-factual and irrelevant is simply wrong, and makes me question the pose you are trying to present to us of a disinterested skeptic.
Zero for three, with a big dollop of conspiracy theory to boot.
Once again I present you with a series of
facts about prosecution actions which were unprofessional or counterproductive, and you dismiss it as opinion.
This is in direct response to your failure to understand the vital legal and philosophical point that it is
not the job of the defence to do
anything more than that there is a plausible story that explains the evidence, in order to conclude that the conviction was unsound. Complaining because the people advocating the position that the conviction was unsound are not going beyond that to present
proof that AK and RS are innocent is indicative of the fact that you don't understand what we're trying to do, or why what we're trying to do is sufficient to make our case.
Oh man...well, thanks for the laugh anyway.
Oh man... well, you kept up the pretence of being a skeptic for a post and a half, that was something.
Well, we agree with something here -- the "not very plausible" part. The rest of it is the usual "let's try to suck them into the trivial and meaningless details" ploy so typical of CTers.
You brought those issues up, not me. You don't get to bring up a PMF talking point based on an utter distortion of reality, then complain that the facts that refute the talking point are "trivial and meaningless".
Again, you need to back this stuff up -- simply stating something as fact doesn't cut it.
Since you didn't provide citations for any of your claims either, I didn't think you wanted to enter into that sort of discussion.
Of course, Stillecito is still equally screwed either way.
I think you're confusing Stilicho the poster with Sollecito the defendant. In any case, the lack of blood makes contamination very much more plausible, because the prosecution story is that the DNA got there because the knife was used to kill Meredith. That doesn't fit with the fact that there was DNA on the knife but
not blood. Of course it's possible that the blood test was a false negative, but seems more likely to me that the less sensitive DNA test was a false positive.
Yeah right. It's also vastly better known as a response a guilty person makes when trying to get their ass out of the stew.
I don't want to try to suck you into the trivial and meaningless details, her confession/accusation fits the profile of a false one much better than that of a true one, and in any case taking your statement strictly literally what is "vastly better known" in your opinion is meaningless.
All nicely wrapped up in an insult. As I said, too predictable.
It's not an insult, it's a fact. You attacked a version of the case that AK and RS's convictions were unfounded which is, to put it in the most charitable possible way, not the strongest version. Thus as a matter of fact you were attacking a straw man.
Alright, I'm gonna say something that's rather uncharitable: That was way too easy. After sorting through the "it's a fact because I say so" verbiage, there really wasn't a whole lot to grab onto.
I guess I'm done here. The only thing I'll do before leaving is to reiterate my original point: The kind of argument exemplified above is probably doing Ms. Knox's cause zero good, because it's essentially indistinguishable from tactics more commonly associated with those who believe 9/11 was an "inside job" and that the world is ruled by reptilian aliens. You're going to have to do better -- way, way better -- before you're going to convince rational people that Amanda Knox is anything other than the vicious, depraved murderer that a court of law has proved her to be.
Yeah, that pretence of objectivity didn't last long did it? I call seagull poster.
