Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
The point of the post you have resurrected was that the issue of the verity of the DNA results for the knife was made moot by Sollecito's own admission that he had reason to believe it could be found there. Had, in fact, a reason to expect it could be found there, by explicitly reciting the particular circumstances which had caused it to be there. At that point it was the verity of his account which became the issue, not that of the lab. That was true then, and remains true now. Your analysis of the lab results, however scholarly and well footnoted, and no matter how often repeated, became irrelevant as far as the knife was concerned. The lab could have stated unequivically that there was no DNA found at all. We'd still be left wondering why Sollecito wanted to claim that there ought to be.
Click to expand...


Why do you think Raffaele's statement about the knife has more credibility than the other 99% of his prison diary, in which he claims to be innocent of the crime?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I'm positive its a deadbolt from the pictures I saw of it - from the blood on the inside handle I'ld bet it was closed while the murder took place and was opened after for Rudy to clean up in the washroom, he didn't pull the door back shut so he must have known Meredith was dead at that time.
Click to expand...

You have links to the photos? From what i saw on the video it appeared to be a door handle with a pull close locking mechanism. However, the video didn't show close up pictures. So its hard to tell. When I lived in Germany I had a door handle that looked similar to it and it could be pull close locked. The door had pull close locking and an inside only deadbolt.
 
Last edited:
I tend to give Kevin's sarcasm the benefit of the doubt here, Mary_H. He is probably disappointed that quadraginta did not elaborate. quadraginta is right in that they have made many fine posts for a long time. That is why I was interested in hearing some elaboration as well. However, I don't want there to be a perception here that you have to answer a certain list of questions in order to participate. Hopefully quadraginta will continue to contribute regardless of what opinion quadraginta has on either guilt or innocence.

I think the best course now that this topic is unmoderated is to respect each poster as an individual entitled to an opinion and having the option to either respond or not to other posters.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Beautiful.

I know I have constructed my list reasonably well when this is the kind of response I get. Thank you tsig!
Click to expand...

If I had written a long detailed post you would be claiming that the length of the post was validation for you.

You're welcome.
 
It would still be interesting to see someone at least attempt to answer Kevin's questions. It's a shame that the most vociferous proponents of Knox & Sollecito's guilt don't seem to enjoy posting in a forum where the opposition cannot be silenced.
 
Matthew Best said:
It would still be interesting to see someone at least attempt to answer Kevin's questions. It's a shame that the most vociferous proponents of Knox & Sollecito's guilt don't seem to enjoy posting in a forum where the opposition cannot be silenced.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false


It wasn't a confession it was an accusation. It is dishonest to keep calling it a confession.

It wasn't vague she clearly accused Patrick

How does Kevin know what the police theories where at the time?

The errors of fact are where Amanda was lying.

The last sentence sets up a false dichotomy.



The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
 
tsig said:
It wasn't a confession it was an accusation. It is dishonest to keep calling it a confession.
Click to expand...

I think it could easily be called both, as well as, perhaps, other things. Nevertheless, Kevin put the word "confession" in quotation marks so I think it's a bit rich to accuse him of dishonesty in doing so - it has to be called something and after all, you knew what he was referring to, didn't you?

As for the question itself (that would be the sentence that ends in a question mark), you seem to have avoided it instead of answering it.

Still, I look forward to your answers to the remaining questions. It's interesting that you skipped straight past questions 1 and 2 to question 3. Perhaps the first two were too difficult?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom