Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

pilot padron · Oct 6, 2010

Good night all

Thank you for the enlightening (on several levels) discourse today.

I enjoy discussing the case, and applaud and share L.J eloquent description earlier of just why people do.

I very much respect each and every one of you, and sincerely thank you for 'tolerating' my obviously minority views.

With malice toward none ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

RoseMontague · Oct 6, 2010

pilot padron said:
Thank you for the enlightening (on several levels) discourse today.

I enjoy discussing the case, and applaud and share L.J eloquent description earlier of just why people do.

I very much respect each and every one of you, and sincerely thank you for 'tolerating' my obviously minority views.

With malice toward none ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Good night, pilot.

Mary_H · Oct 6, 2010

capealadin said:
I'm not going to deal with hypothesis, can't remember who, no evidence submitted. I was not given reliable cites, (which is deemed so important). In fact the silence is rather deafening. I wrote about Ghirga's staement. I asked for evidence that Ms. Popovic had credentials pertaining to the fact that she found Amanda normal. I asked how long she'd known Amanda, if she had ACTUALLY seen her.

Some of the questions you asked don't stem from documented information. For example, I think Ms. Popovic meant that Amanda seemed normal in relation to the way people act in general, not in relation to the way Amanda usually acted. Whether Ms. Popovic was qualified to make that assessment is unknown; that may be why no one responded to your question.

I asked who had access to Raff's apartment, some evidence that it was the police. Who were they? I don't follow your reasoning at all, that the prosecutor or attorneys are *nervous* of the police. Attorneys and prosecurors cross examing police all the time. I asked for evidence where Ghirga was in jeapordy, should he say something bad about the trial. In fact, he didn't have to say anything. Yet, he did. So, reliable cites are asked (DEMANDED) for the *guilters)*...but the innocenters can go about, with hypothesis, don't know names..etc. I am disappointed, Halides, that you have tried to take me around THE MULBERRY BUSH, ignoring the nitty gritty of what I asked for. Do you think I'm so easily bamboozled? This wondering off in circles, rather than staying on point?

I think halides1 has answered some of your questions about this. The opinion that any of the Perugians connected with the case have incentives for remaining silent results from the big picture that has formed from research, analysis and observations we have made about the case, but not necessarily from specific documented incidents. Some of it is conjecture, but it is conjecture based on patterns we recognize among the cast of characters in Perugia, and how similar their activities have been to activities in other problematic cases worldwide and throughout history.

There is some discussion of this issue going on right now on Perugia Shock, by the way.

I think Rose says it best when she points out the difference between the appeals and the public image of the lawyers.

Thank you Mary, for the tip on using quotes. That's very useful for everyone. I came here in good faith, have been insulted by Chris C, not afforded the same standard as the innocenters. It's obvious that posters like me are not welcome. And not afforded cites, on point answers, which is claimed to be necessary to debate. Whatever the outcome, may none of us know the tragedy of the Kerchers. Cheers.

You're welcome. I agree, it would be best if insults were eliminated from the debate.

Scorpion NITE · Oct 6, 2010

pilot padron said:
1) may I respectfully request you refer to my reply to another poster about typographical errors.
(My nun teachers did not have smileys to alleviate embarrassment)

2) your wishes about my psychological strengths and weaknesses are acknowledged with a resultant subsequent mental note to re-read the rules I read upon joining this Board

3) will try to comply with your request to 'dumb down' my everyday English to meet your stated personal reasons

Incidentally a poster I have a lot of esteem for here despite different opinion expressed a diametrically (ooops.. "a lot different") note here about my use of the English vocabulary.
Thanks Rose
Also the use of the marmalade sized words in the post the terminology appeared was for a very specific purpose which it incidentally very neatly fully accomplished

It has no relation nor need whatsoever to elevate my 'perceived' intelligence from anyone here.
I speak no differently here than I do in my everyday life to include frequent interaction with children

4) Finally in compliance with the nun technique discussed in previous post, please just read this sentence:
Your post prompted me to consult Webster so I might correctly use the term standardized

In deference to the rules I cited above, be assured there is no intended snideness, yet instead only a sincere effort to address each point in your post with similar 'earnestness'

Sincere best regards

Funnily enough, it isn't actually that difficult to read between the lines.

It can be rather awkward when ones continues to trip oneself up, though.

Here in ENGLAND, we spell it standardised, despite your gleeful quoting of the American version.

Have a nice day.

capealadin · Oct 6, 2010

Mary_H said:
Some of the questions you asked don't stem from documented information. For example, I think Ms. Popovic meant that Amanda seemed normal in relation to the way people act in general, not in relation to the way Amanda usually acted. Whether Ms. Popovic was qualified to make that assessment is unknown; that may be why no one responded to your question.

I think halides1 has answered some of your questions about this. The opinion that anyone connected with the case has incentives for remaining silent results from the big picture that has formed from research, analysis and observations we have made about the case, but not necessarily from specific documented incidents. Some of it is conjecture, but it is conjecture based on patterns we recognize among the cast of characters in Perugia, and how similar their activities have been to activities in other problematic cases worldwide and throughout history.

There is some discussion of this issue going on right now on Perugia Shock, by the way.

I think Rose says it best when she points out the difference between the appeals and the public image of the lawyers.

You're welcome. I agree, it would be best if insults were eliminated from the debate.

Why is conjecture, probabilities, hypothesis allowed by the innocenters, and others are rudely demanded with cites? Even when cites are duly given, they are then asked for, in their opinion, reliable cites? How is conjecture determined from either point of view? If you read the posts again, Mary, you will see that Halides asserted. The difference between an appeals and image? One is the person, another his job. The appeals are done , using knowledge of law, or interpretaion. The persona of a person, in his public image , is revealing charachter, a human side. Ghirga did not have to say anything. He chose to...how does that , in any way, point to him being in jeapordy, should he have opted to denounce the trial? It has been pointed out, that there would be repercussions. I am waiting for cites. It may be best, in this instance, Mary, if Halides speaks for himself, as he obviously has the knowledge and reasoning of his claims. BTW, a lawyer prepare and submit appeals for his client, irrespective of whether he believes in the outcome of the trial. That is what he is paid to do. I am assuming Ghirga is being paid? Even if acting pro-bono, he has a duty to do so.

Mary_H · Oct 6, 2010

capealadin said:
Why is conjecture, probabilities, hypothesis allowed by the innocenters, and others are rudely demanded with cites? Even when cites are duly given, they are then asked for, in their opinion, reliable cites? How is conjecture determined from either point of view? If you read the posts again, Mary, you will see that Halides asserted. The difference between an appeals and image? One is the person, another his job. The appeals are done , using knowledge of law, or interpretaion. The persona of a person, in his public image , is revealing charachter, a human side. Ghirga did not have to say anything. He chose to...how does that , in any way, point to him being in jeapordy, should he have opted to denounce the trial? It has been pointed out, that there would be repercussions. I am waiting for cites. It may be best, in this instance, Mary, if Halides speaks for himself, as he obviously has the knowledge and reasoning of his claims.

I agree, halides1 doesn't need any help from me, and I have lost track of what the original questions were anyway.

BTW, a lawyer prepare and submit appeals for his client, irrespective of whether he believes in the outcome of the trial. That is what he is paid to do. I am assuming Ghirga is being paid? Even if acting pro-bono, he has a duty to do so.

This is very true. In a country where there isn't a danger of being sued for calunnia, though, lawyers' public comments match their trial arguments. Even if the lawyer's opinion differs from his client's case in some way, he never discloses that he disagrees with her.

capealadin · Oct 6, 2010

Mary_H said:
I agree, halides1 doesn't need any help from me, and I have lost track of what the original questions were anyway.

This is very true. In a country where there isn't a danger of being sued for calunnia, though, lawyers' public comments match their trial arguments. Even if the lawyer's opinion differs from his client's case in some way, he never discloses that he disagrees with her.

And, in THIS case, Mary, both client and her attorney came to the same conclusion. That the trial was fair, and that Amanda's rights were respected.

Kevin_Lowe · Oct 6, 2010

capealadin said:
Why is conjecture, probabilities, hypothesis allowed by the innocenters, and others are rudely demanded with cites? Even when cites are duly given, they are then asked for, in their opinion, reliable cites? How is conjecture determined from either point of view?

Factual claims should be backed up by citations. When possible you should cite the peer-reviewed scientific literature, however failing that popular and non-reviewed sources are better than nothing.

Conjecture, hypotheses and so forth are fine as long as they are flagged as such, although obviously they are not conclusive in the way that facts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, for example, are conclusive.

In this particular case conjecture, hypotheses and so forth do have a special role, in that a plausible conjecture about how a given state of affairs might have arisen without Knox and Sollecito being murderers can constitute grounds for reasonable doubt.

I hope that helps.

These are not arbitrary rules we made up to annoy PMFers, they are the basic ground rules of intelligent debate amongst educated people.

Chris_Halkides · Oct 6, 2010

Indeed

Mary_H said:
I think halides1 has answered some of your questions about this. The opinion that any of the Perugians connected with the case have incentives for remaining silent results from the big picture that has formed from research, analysis and observations we have made about the case, but not necessarily from specific documented incidents. Some of it is conjecture, but it is conjecture based on patterns we recognize among the cast of characters in Perugia, and how similar their activities have been to activities in other problematic cases worldwide and throughout history.

SNIP

I think Rose says it best when she points out the difference between the appeals and the public image of the lawyers.

MaryH,

That is a very good overview of how I see it. A detailed consideration will have to wait until tomorrow, at the earliest.

capealadin · Oct 6, 2010

Kevin_Lowe said:
Factual claims should be backed up by citations. When possible you should cite the peer-reviewed scientific literature, however failing that popular and non-reviewed sources are better than nothing.

Conjecture, hypotheses and so forth are fine as long as they are flagged as such, although obviously they are not conclusive in the way that facts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, for example, are conclusive.

In this particular case conjecture, hypotheses and so forth do have a special role, in that a plausible conjecture about how a given state of affairs might have arisen without Knox and Sollecito being murderers can constitute grounds for reasonable doubt.

I hope that helps.

These are not arbitrary rules we made up to annoy PMFers, they are the basic ground rules of intelligent debate amongst educated people.

In the same vein, conjecture, hypotheses, about a given state of affairs, should constitute grounds for the belief in the guilty verdict. Who, may ask, is the arbiter of those decisions?

Kevin_Lowe · Oct 6, 2010

capealadin said:
In the same vein, conjecture, hypotheses, about a given state of affairs, should constitute grounds for the belief in the guilty verdict. Who, may ask, is the arbiter of those decisions?

We're talking about whether their conviction was justified, do you see? If we demonstrate that there is grounds for a rational person to have reasonable doubt about their guilt, then it follows that their conviction was not justified.

In that sense, law is the arbiter of this particular decision.

colonelhall · Oct 6, 2010

Being unable to follow the site too closely lately, due to company B manoeuvres and an ongoing investigation into unauthorised use of army jeeps, I have had to content myself with a quick scan.

I notice that there is still some discussion regarding Marriott, the company that proudly boasts its involvement with the Knox family. It has gone from an inferred denial that they are involved at all, to a discussion as what they actually do for the family, to comments regarding the level of fees that they charge.

Originally,this stemmed from my questioning the extremely un-critical coverage of the case, as seen in the States and the fact that the supporters never appear alongside anybody prepared to question their claims. I remain convinced that this is so, and in the case of CBS especially, the coverage is an absolute disgrace!

It seems as if, posters are apt to wander off the point at times.

capealadin · Oct 6, 2010

In that case, we shall have to wait for the outcome of the two appeals. In the meantime, I have asked for cites, from Halides. He has asserted that Ghirga would be in jeopardy, should he have spoken badly about the outcome. I believe you, Kevin, are the strongest voice here, demanding cites, for everything. From the guilters, to be sure. No leeway for us. May I even suggest, you have been rather abrasive. Very good posters, for example, have been Solange and Pilot Padron. Solange has left, I imagine Pilot will shortly leave. They have been extremely polite, in my view. I am left with the impression, that our views are not welcome. I look forward to a forum, where there is at least respect for opposing views. There are posters here, who meet that criteria. I leave it to all, or any of you here, to think about who encourages newbies, and those that insult, and demean. I am done here, as any kind of debate seems fruitless. Tjere have certainly been no cites coming forward to refute what I have said. I won't claim that anyone here was happy with the fact that Ghirga and Amanda said what they did. If I was an innocenter, I would be quite chagrined. I did read over at pmf, an article written by Raffaele's aunt. She begs forums, all forums, basically to cease and desist. She feels that they are detrimental to Amanda's and Raffaele's cause. I don't accept that, because whatever is discussed, for or against, will have no bearing on the outcome. It has never been my objective to change anyone's mind. With that, as I have said before, may all of us, and I mean all, never know the tragedy of the Kerchers.

Brooktrout · Oct 6, 2010

halides1 said:
MaryH,

That is a very good overview of how I see it. A detailed consideration will have to wait until tomorrow, at the earliest.

On this point, it's useful to note that Frank Sfarzo, a very good reporter, has expressed his fear of retribution from authorities several times, most recently expressed as "walking on eggshells" for fear of slander charges.

This is little more than a legal inconvenience for North American reporters. This is not a question of North America being superior, but clearly Perugia has a distinctive political and administrative power culture.

Kevin_Lowe · Oct 6, 2010

capealadin said:
In that case, we shall have to wait for the outcome of the two appeals. In the meantime, I have asked for cites, from Halides. He has asserted that Ghirga would be in jeopardy, should he have spoken badly about the outcome. I believe you, Kevin, are the strongest voice here, demanding cites, for everything. From the guilters, to be sure. No leeway for us.

Before you buy party hats for a full-blown pity party, take a look around these forums. Everyone gets asked for evidence all the time around here. You are not being picked on, and more than any other group of people making unscientific claims they cannot back up.

May I even suggest, you have been rather abrasive. Very good posters, for example, have been Solange and Pilot Padron. Solange has left, I imagine Pilot will shortly leave. They have been extremely polite, in my view.

It would indeed be a tragedy to lose a pro-guilt poster who made intelligent, well-referenced arguments to support their case, as opposed to relying on character assassination, appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance, claims which are factually false or just outright trolling when they have nothing left.

I would be very sorry if that ever happened. However I'm not stocking up on tissues just in case it ever does.

I am left with the impression, that our views are not welcome. I look forward to a forum, where there is at least respect for opposing views.

I do not respect views based on stupidity, wilful ignorance or malice.

There are posters here, who meet that criteria. I leave it to all, or any of you here, to think about who encourages newbies, and those that insult, and demean.

It's got nothing to do with newbies versus old guard. It's all about what arguments you present and how you support them,

I am done here, as any kind of debate seems fruitless.

It may indeed be fruitless until the day comes that guilters are persuaded by facts and logic, or the day comes that guilters come up with facts and logic that prove Knox and Sollecito guilty. You will find that we're quite flexible here when it comes to changing our minds as new facts come in: that's the whole point of skepticism, to proportion our beliefs to the currently available evidence. So do come back if you find evidence or arguments based on verifiable facts that establish the guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

Dan O. · Oct 6, 2010

act1roson said:
Sorry to interrupt.

Could someone direct me to this group's discussion of the murder room's crime scene photographs? I used the search tool, but did not get satisfactory results.

Also, if someone here remembers those discussions, I would appreciate being directed to the best posts from both guilty and innocent perspectives.

I am hoping the discussion of the murder room evidence is as thorough as these stomach contents posts that have taken place recently.

Thanking you in advance.......

Ahh, the interruption is welcome.

Charlie provided many excellent photographic records of the crime scene. Try searching for links to "http://www.friendsofamanda.org/".

The discussion tends to be quite spread out. It would help if you could be more specific about what you are looking for.

Mary_H · Oct 6, 2010

colonelhall said:
<snip>Originally,this stemmed from my questioning the extremely un-critical coverage of the case, as seen in the States and the fact that the supporters never appear alongside anybody prepared to question their claims. I remain convinced that this is so, and in the case of CBS especially, the coverage is an absolute disgrace!

It seems as if, posters are apt to wander off the point at times.

colonelhall, I am intrigued by your use of the phrase "uncritical coverage." From a chronological standpoint alone, criticism usually follows that which it criticizes. The media coverage that supports Amanda followed the media coverage that trashed her -- by many months. Based only on that very simple point of view, we could claim that the pro-Amanda coverage is not uncritical.

Obviously, that is not necessarily a valid argument. The initial coverage of an issue can be accurate, only to be followed by coverage that is distorted but effective at changing people's minds. In other words, a cover-up consisting of propaganda can take place. Some of the guilters seem to feel that is what is happening in this case.

But let's look at the progress in the media coverage of this case. As was mentioned here today, we are no longer seeing media claims of running washing machines, mops and buckets, or bleach receipts. Many facts that were hidden before have become clearer as time has gone on, either through testimony or investigation. Or have they?

Would you have it that the increasing pro-Amanda media coverage constitutes a suppression of the truth? Do you imagine that David Marriott has the power to persuade journalists and broadcasters of lies? If so, please illustrate. After that, we can mull over the question of why David Marriott is not ruling the world, or at least running for office.

Kevin_Lowe · Oct 6, 2010

act1roson said:
Sorry to interrupt.

Could someone direct me to this group's discussion of the murder room's crime scene photographs? I used the search tool, but did not get satisfactory results.

Also, if someone here remembers those discussions, I would appreciate being directed to the best posts from both guilty and innocent perspectives.

I am hoping the discussion of the murder room evidence is as thorough as these stomach contents posts that have taken place recently.

Thanking you in advance.......

Are there particular points about the murder room you were interested in? If so that too might help us direct you to relevant previous discussions.

Charlie Wilkes · Oct 6, 2010

Machiavelli said:
But I don't quite understand the meaning you attribute to this episode (or episodes?).
Who is writing makes very judgemental assertions ("triumphantly presented to the press"). But the presentation to the press was rather a notification to the defence, and investigators at the moment did actually believe the book was a piece of evidence.

Nonsense. They searched Sollecito's apartment a month earlier, and the book was lying out in plain sight, on a table. They got it on video.

Here's the book found at Sollecito's apartment on November 16:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/potter_rs_apt_nov_16.jpg

Here's the one found at the cottage on December 18:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/potter_cottage_dec_18.jpg

Do you notice how the book is front and center in the December 18 photo? They presented it as evidence that Amanda had lied to them, when in fact they knew she was telling the truth.

Charlie Wilkes · Oct 6, 2010

Dan O. said:
Ahh, the interruption is welcome.

Charlie provided many excellent photographic records of the crime scene. Try searching for links to "http://www.friendsofamanda.org/".

The discussion tends to be quite spread out. It would help if you could be more specific about what you are looking for.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Muse

Published Author

Philosopher

Critical Thinker

Muse

Philosopher

Muse

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Unregistered

Thinker

Muse

Student

Unregistered

Banned

Philosopher

Unregistered

Illuminator

Illuminator