Is the "Amanda Knox" thread an example of bad skeptisism?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I should say that it is not universally acknowledged that all the "moles" are effectively despatched.

Not this again, look, I mean seriously, haven't you read paragraphs sixteen to twenty of post #234756, the first eighteen paragraphs of #9835273 on pages 3442 and 10256 respectively, and the links to the thirty-four relevant web sites in the original thread on pages eighty-two to one hundred and sixteen inclusive? Try to keep up.

If anyone still thinks that Amanda Knox's DNA wasn't found in Quintavalle's fourth footprint in the basketball court at 22:13 when the tea leaf evidence combined with the sound analysis clearly shows that Meredith's small intestine was turning cartwheels with Rudy in the Perugia lawyers' office at noon in the middle of the night then they're just an idiot.

 

[Mary_H]

Not this again, look, I mean seriously, haven't you read paragraphs sixteen to twenty of post #234756, the first eighteen paragraphs of #9835273 on pages 3442 and 10256 respectively, and the links to the thirty-four relevant web sites in the original thread on pages eighty-two to one hundred and sixteen inclusive? Try to keep up.

If anyone still thinks that Amanda Knox's DNA wasn't found in Quintavalle's fourth footprint in the basketball court at 22:13 when the tea leaf evidence combined with the sound analysis clearly shows that Meredith's small intestine was turning cartwheels with Rudy in the Perugia lawyers' office one fine day in the middle of the night then they're just an idiot.

ROFL, Kevin! But I think that was 22:31.

 

[brodski]

I should say that it is not universally acknowledged that all the "moles" are effectively despatched.

The other issue is that both sides have moles which refuse to die no matter how often they are whacked, but as people seem to have taken sides and are supporting guilt or innocence like football teams, most posters are only interested in whacking the “other team’s” moles.

 

[lionking]

The other issue is that both sides have moles which refuse to die no matter how often they are whacked, but as people seem to have taken sides and are supporting guilt or innocence like football teams, most posters are only interested in whacking the “other team’s” moles.

That's true, although Kevin's last post almost decided the issue for me.

 

[Chris C]

ROFL, Kevin! But I think that was 22:31.

No No No. your both wrong. It happened at 1322 hrs and it was instant tea. Plus, everyone is wrong because Colonel Mustard killed her with the candle stick in the library.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I would summarize it differently

I've read a lot of it - it's not as onerous as people might think because many of the themes are repeated and the pro and con arguments about, for example, the bloody footprint in the bathroom, become well recognized and it's quite possible to skip over a lot of posts.

I lean to one side of the issue, but am open to changing my view. The appeals will go a long way towards making my final decision.

It's interesting that in one of my few posts there I asked if those who thought Amanda innocent would change their minds if her appeal failed. I was firstly criticized for being unskeptical by asking this question - it should be crystal clear to me that she was innocent, said some. Others said they would not change their minds as a failed appeal would simply reinforce the corrupt investigation and trial.

On the other hand, some of those who thought Amanda guilty (in a minority of those regularly posting in this thread) said they would accept a final not guilty verdict.

I don't think the Amanda Knox thread is a high water mark of skepticism

lionking,

With due respect I don't believe that your summary above is accurate. You only posed the question to the side which favors innocence. Also, one or two people gave you very specific answers about potentially new pieces of evidence, which if developed would change their minds. The putative semen sample came up right away and the opening up of the knife was mentioned later. On the other hand, if a guilty person were to accept a verdict of innocence, it is not the same thing as believing that the two are innocent in fact.

 

[SezMe]

Tsk, tsk, halides1, here is not the place to argue the case. That wormhole is thataway ----->

 

[Dragoonster]

No No No. your both wrong. It happened at 1322 hrs and it was instant tea. Plus, everyone is wrong because Colonel Mustard killed her with the candle stick in the library.

What? You obviously haven't been paying attention to the evidence. Professor Plum killed her in the study with a chainsaw. The Italian player cheated and rearranged the envelope cards.

[p.s. I want to thank Clue for teaching me and my sister reasoning and critical thinking skills at a very young age. Thank you, Clue]

 

[Chris_Halkides]

falsifiable

Tsk, tsk, halides1, here is not the place to argue the case. That wormhole is thataway ----->

It was not my intention to argue the case, and I regret the appearance to the contrary. I was attempting to show that some commenters on that thread are being skeptical in the sense of having an opinion that is falsifiable. The potential evidence I brought up doesn't exist yet, and may never exist (neither item has been tested in the way I indicated). Hope this helps.

 

[brenn]

After seeing this thread, I finally got up enough interest to google "Amanda Knox"...oh, that case. I'd say my primary interest here is in legal issues, but I can't even get up enough interest in that "Entertainment Tonight" headliner to open the thread. I can't imagine why people would get wrapped up in it.

 

[Chris C]

After seeing this thread, I finally got up enough interest to google "Amanda Knox"...oh, that case. I'd say my primary interest here is in legal issues, but I can't even get up enough interest in that "Entertainment Tonight" headliner to open the thread. I can't imagine why people would get wrapped up in it.

Its either argue with them or go get drunk at the bar and come home and argue with the wife.

 

[lionking]

Its either argue with them or go get drunk at the bar and come home and argue with the wife.

Reading your posts in that thread, it looks like the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Mary_H]

After seeing this thread, I finally got up enough interest to google "Amanda Knox"...oh, that case. I'd say my primary interest here is in legal issues, but I can't even get up enough interest in that "Entertainment Tonight" headliner to open the thread. I can't imagine why people would get wrapped up in it.

If your primary interest is legal issues, then the Amanda Knox case is the case for you. You won't believe your eyes.

 

[Dan O.]

Did the Knox thread get set to moderated status or something?

That thread is currently on "Double Secret Moderation" status.

 

[uk_dave]

Personally, I believe that Amanda Knox murdered...................

...........


...........


............


.............


............ Vince Foster!

 

[Dan O.]

I lean to one side of the issue, but am open to changing my view. The appeals will go a long way towards making my final decision.

It's interesting that in one of my few posts there I asked if those who thought Amanda innocent would change their minds if her appeal failed. I was firstly criticized for being unskeptical by asking this question - it should be crystal clear to me that she was innocent, said some. Others said they would not change their minds as a failed appeal would simply reinforce the corrupt investigation and trial.

On the other hand, some of those who thought Amanda guilty (in a minority of those regularly posting in this thread) said they would accept a final not guilty verdict.

I don't think the Amanda Knox thread is a high water mark of skepticism

I think a good deal of the divide in that thread is the authoritarian views of the posters. Those that believe a judge is the final authority on the truth gravitate towards the guilty side. Those that look for scientific verification of the claims gravitate towards the innocent side. Your question seems to fall directly into that divide.

 

[brenn]

If your primary interest is legal issues, then the Amanda Knox case is the case for you. You won't believe your eyes.

No - I've seen a little about it on TV and read a little about it. Seems to be the same old "I was convicted in a foreign country and my parents have enough money to complain publicly" type of case. I guess I am mainly interested in American law and Amanda Knox's case doesn't involve it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hey all

Have read the amanda knox thread from begining to end and its struck me that conspiracies and uninformed conjecture can even make their way on to the jref of all places! I was wondering if anyone else has read this thread and has any thoughts, similar or otherwise.

thanks

s_pepys,

I am confused about your use of the word conspiracy. Suppose that two people in law enforcement enter into an agreement to withhold evidence. The person who believes that it happened believes in a conspiracy by definition. Yet I would be hesitant to label such a person a conspiracy theorist. Can you clarify what you were thinking?

 

[Malkmus]

For those wondering why the thread exists, it should be noted that since the guilty verdict was issued nearly a year ago there have been multiple books about the case released, all of which question the validity of the forensic evidence, a retired FBI agent who has compromised his job in order to speak out against the verdict, a detailed motivations report was released by the judge with plenty of fodder to chew on, the defense's list of appeals has been revealed, an Italian lawmaker has written a book about his personal experiences with Amanda, her parents are facing upcoming slander charges, and lest we not forgot the actual forthcoming appeal trial itself which could change her fate. To question the validity of this topic as a JREF thread is quite ludicrous, IMHO, as there is plenty to talk about.

 

[lionking]

For those wondering why the thread exists, it should be noted that since the guilty verdict was issued nearly a year ago there have been multiple books about the case released, all of which question the validity of the forensic evidence, a retired FBI agent who has compromised his job in order to speak out against the verdict, a detailed motivations report was released by the judge with plenty of fodder to chew on, the defense's list of appeals has been revealed, an Italian lawmaker has written a book about his personal experiences with Amanda, her parents are facing upcoming slander charges, and lest we not forgot the actual forthcoming appeal trial itself which could change her fate. To question the validity of this topic as a JREF thread is quite ludicrous, IMHO, as there is plenty to talk about.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it is not a valid topic. It does in my opinion share characteristics with many topics in the Religion and CT sections, with entrenched positions and very little real discussion at all. As I said earlier, I don't think it's a high-water mark for skepticism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here.