Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

I have looked at the evidence and found it wanting

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

Lionking,

I believe that she and Raffaele are factually innocent and should have been declared legally innocent at the first trial. Do you think that Amanda and Raffaele received a fair trial the first time around? If not, then what does a guilty verdict prove?

 

[Malkmus]

I wonder why anyone would think she will win on appeal. If, as Amanda's supporters think, the Perugia police and justice system are completely corrupt, plant evidence, and lie for each other then why do they think she could possibly win an appeal? On the other hand if she's guilty then she should not win her appeal.

I've said it before. I don't expect her and Raf to win the appeal. Maybe at the supreme court level. And that's a big MAYBE.

 

[Malkmus]

I wonder why anyone would think she will win on appeal. If, as Amanda's supporters think, the Perugia police and justice system are completely corrupt, plant evidence, and lie for each other then why do they think she could possibly win an appeal? On the other hand if she's guilty then she should not win her appeal.

Also, I don't think anyone here has ever said the above.

What can make a difference is reexamination of shaky evidence, which their lawyers have prepared, and a new judge. Massei's reasoning is heavily disputed by both sides of this debate.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Where is their DNA on her body?

He did, his DNA is on her bra clasp. His bloody footprints are on the bath mat and in the corridor. It sounds like a non-argument to me.

The DNA on the bra clasp is irrelevant to the question of how one could strangle a person or restrain that person in a life-and-death struggle and not leave DNA from contact with her neck, arms, or elsewhere. That would require a good deal of force for a long time.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

Good question, and I think we all know the answer. If she were aquitted on the other hand, I could let her go for one and not drag it on forever, I would still think she had some roll in it, but I wouldn't carry the fight on, I'ld put it to bed once and for all, or until she murdered again......

 

[Chris C]

Yeah..sure, maybe they had the idea of 'Let's make our own wine' and paddled about barefoot crushing grapes in the corridor...or hey, maybe had some sort of kinky game that involved emptying a bottle of wine and running about in it naked...if that direction sounds usefull to you, go for it....

...sounds a winner of a theory too..a real case breaker...send it on to the defence. I've heard they send out a free keyring and voucher for 10% off of any box of popular breakfast serial for each idea.

As for the cite...cite for what? In the meantime, I'm not even asking for a cite, just a mere scintilla (to use Curt's favourite word) of evidence bleach existed in the cottage and was used at any time. Do you have any?

So when where for footprints left? If your claim is its blood, then when were the left. Luminol can't date what it reacts too. They use luminol on areas that are over 10,000 years old to check for the possibility of blood, so they can try and get dna samples. Since your claim there was no bleach in the apartment. Then there was no clean up either. Mignini had his people looking for bleach receipts to try and prove a clean up, because there was no physical evidence of a clean up at the apartment. So if the apartment wasn't cleaned up, then when where the footprints left. There was no dna evidence in the luminol prints. So if it is blood. Then when was it left? They are able to get dna profiles over 10,000 years old when finding blood with luminol. So where did the dna go in Knox's place.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

That right there is what we call a false dichotomy. In this case it's indicative of a deep and total failure to understand what skepticism (you know, the reason this board exists) is.

A skeptic proportions their belief to the evidence.

If new evidence emerges from the appeal, I might well change my mind. That's what skeptics do when they encounter new evidence.

If all we get out of it is a bunch of people expressing their opinion of the same evidence we have now, then of course I'm not going to change my mind. The opinion of a bunch of people sitting around a room in Perugia is not evidence, it's just their opinion.

If we changed our minds just because the appeal failed, we'd be very poor skeptics indeed. The same judgment applies to anyone who thinks we should change our minds just because the appeal failed.

 

[Chris C]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

Its about the evidence, which in this case is severely lacking. If the prosecution where to present evidence that wasn't tainted, without logic or flawed, I'd reconsider my position that they are innocent. However, since I honestly dont see any evidence to support conviction, they will always be innocent in my point of view.

 

[Chris C]

And you're quite willing to accept that a man can climb a sheer wall, hall himself through a whole in the window, ransack the room and leave not a trace, but that's convenient. Swings and roundabouts.

THe prosecution is willing to accept knox and sollecito did that while murdering Meredith. Of course i think there is a good chance that a rock was just thrown through the window to check and see if anyone was home. When the lights didn't come on, rudy just went through the front door.

 

[Chris C]

Also, I don't think anyone here has ever said the above.

What can make a difference is reexamination of shaky evidence, which their lawyers have prepared, and a new judge. Massei's reasoning is heavily disputed by both sides of this debate.

Actually you dont have to say it. If you believe they hit Knox, then you believe they are corrupt. Since they lied about it. If you believe the interrogation was taped and the prosecution is withholding those tapes, then you believe they are corrupt .Now I'm not exactly sure I believe the part about her being struck, I think the tapes could prove if she was or wasn't. I do believe they taped that interview however. Therefore since I believe that interview was taped, then by default I believe they are corrupt. Now I dont believe the justice system is corrupt. All justice systems have flaws. All prosecutors and attorneys know how to exploit those flaws. However, no one has to actually say they believe the police are corrupt. If you believe they are lieing about what happened during that interrogation or while gathering evidence, then by default you believe they are corrupt.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've said it before. I don't expect her and Raf to win the appeal. Maybe at the supreme court level. And that's a big MAYBE.

I've got no opinion on the matter.

I think Knox and Sollecito should be released on appeal, and an inquiry begun into the circumstances under which they were convicted. However I have absolutely no idea or opinion about whether either of those things will happen.

 

[JREF2010]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

I think for me its not really the Judges interpretation that convinces me. So the answer is "no".

Look at the other Judges reports, in hindsight they have been wrong on many subjects, due to the evidence presented at that trial.

My belief will change with new information, if it comes out. A lot of things changed in this case, the arrival of the postal police was a big change, apparently a few more minutes added to the pc activity with the cartoon etc..etc... new evidence, like Bruce Fisher posting the layering of the glass, I thought was really interesting and caused a paradigm shift in perspective with this unsolved window breaking. And for example, Massei judges the window was broken from the inside, but he never explains how someone can open a window inward, smash the glass so hard it chips the wood, and then the glass ends up on the window sill perfectly layered.

Judges decisions...Massei didn't really buy Mignini's tale, though he gave Mignini a win, a guilty verdict.....but he gave Girgha and the defense absolutely nothing. The defense talked to a wall of bricks.

 

[Malkmus]

Actually you dont have to say it. If you believe they hit Knox, then you believe they are corrupt. Since they lied about it. If you believe the interrogation was taped and the prosecution is withholding those tapes, then you believe they are corrupt .Now I'm not exactly sure I believe the part about her being struck, I think the tapes could prove if she was or wasn't. I do believe they taped that interview however. Therefore since I believe that interview was taped, then by default I believe they are corrupt. Now I dont believe the justice system is corrupt. All justice systems have flaws. All prosecutors and attorneys know how to exploit those flaws. However, no one has to actually say they believe the police are corrupt. If you believe they are lieing about what happened during that interrogation or while gathering evidence, then by default you believe they are corrupt.

I believe Mignini is corrupt, not the entire police force or the judicial system. Their government has also acknowledged Mignini's corruption. I believe the police force like their jobs and gave Mignini what he wanted, but probably don't see themselves as having done anything wrong.

 

[lionking]

That right there is what we call a false dichotomy. In this case it's indicative of a deep and total failure to understand what skepticism (you know, the reason this board exists) is.

A skeptic proportions their belief to the evidence.

If new evidence emerges from the appeal, I might well change my mind. That's what skeptics do when they encounter new evidence.

If all we get out of it is a bunch of people expressing their opinion of the same evidence we have now, then of course I'm not going to change my mind. The opinion of a bunch of people sitting around a room in Perugia is not evidence, it's just their opinion.

If we changed our minds just because the appeal failed, we'd be very poor skeptics indeed. The same judgment applies to anyone who thinks we
should change our minds just because the appeal failed.

Thanks for the lecture in skepticism, with an obligatory straw man thrown in. I could give one on zealotry I suppose.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thanks for the lecture in skepticism, with an obligatory straw man thrown in. I could give one on zealotry I suppose.

I'm irresistably reminded of the incident where Jon Stewart was told by Tucker Carlson that Jon needed to get a job at a journalism school, and Jon responded "You need to go to one".

If three people simultaneously give you a lecture on the very basics of skepticism in response to a post of yours, that might give some people pause. That might even make some people think that they needed just such a lecture and that they could learn something from it.

What do you think is indicative of zealotry in a group of people all telling you "If new evidence comes along we'll look at it, and if it doesn't we won't change our minds?". That doesn't look like zealotry to me, that looks like rationality.

 

[Dan O.]

Also, I don't think anyone here has ever said the above.

What can make a difference is reexamination of shaky evidence, which their lawyers have prepared, and a new judge. Massei's reasoning is heavily disputed by both sides of this debate.

For one example of Massei's shaky reasoning, on page 413 of his report to support the notion that there was a cleanup he says "In fact, the bare foot which, stained with blood, left its footprint on the sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps which should have left other footprints on the floor". He completely misses the possibility that we talked about earlier where Rudy walked into that bathroom with non-bloody shoes and removed his shoe to wash the blood off his pants.

 

[Chris C]

For one example of Massei's shaky reasoning, on page 413 of his report to support the notion that there was a cleanup he says "In fact, the bare foot which, stained with blood, left its footprint on the sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps which should have left other footprints on the floor". He completely misses the possibility that we talked about earlier where Rudy walked into that bathroom with non-bloody shoes and removed his shoe to wash the blood off his pants.

Actually the real point thats being missed is this. How did they clean up the mess going to the bathroom, without cleaning up the mess leaving the bathroom?

 

[lionking]

I'm irresistably reminded of the incident where Jon Stewart was told by Tucker Carlson that Jon needed to get a job at a journalism school, and Jon responded "You need to go to one".

If three people simultaneously give you a lecture on the very basics of skepticism in response to a post of yours, that might give some people pause. That might even make some people think that they needed just such a lecture and that they could learn something from it.

What do you think is indicative of zealotry in a group of people all telling you "If new evidence comes along we'll look at it, and if it doesn't we won't change our minds?". That doesn't look like zealotry to me, that looks like rationality.

Tell me, is Fulcanelli a true skeptic or not?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Tell me, is Fulcanelli a true skeptic or not?

That is not the topic of this thread, and for that matter a negative response could be interpreted as a personal attack which would be a breach of the MA.

I suggest you ask in Forum Management whether or not you could start a new thread about this specific topic. I don't like your chances, but at least you'd be going through proper channels.

 

[lionking]

That is not the topic of this thread, and for that matter a negative response could be interpreted as a personal attack which would be a breach of the MA.

I suggest you ask in Forum Management whether or not you could start a new thread about this specific topic. I don't like your chances, but at least you'd be going through proper channels.

Interesting that you feel free to conclude that I do not meet your standards as a skeptic, but think that it would be a personal attack if you drew the same conclusion about another. A curious, evasive post.