• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
treehorn said:
Well, there, then, now.

Tell us, Kevin, what DO the Court's findings and Knox's trial testimony tell us about Amanda and Rudy?
Click to expand...

Hang on a minute. Before we get to that, do you now believe that there is evidence to support the claim that " "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions", or do you believe that there is not evidence to support this claim?

If you believe there is evidence, what is it?

If you do not, can you at least acknowledge that on this one point we were right, you were wrong, the text you claimed as evidence was not in fact evidence, and that "the citation game" you dismiss has a vital role in keeping people honest?

By any objective measure they do NOT support YOUR assertion that Amanda did not know Rudy.

(You made an IRRATIONAL over-simplification when you tried to intimate that Rudy was an unknown crook that had nothing whatsoever to do with the lives of the students living in the cottage. Admit it.)
Click to expand...

"Know" is not the most precise word in the English language, but it implies a degree of familiarity. If you have only ever met Andy Smith once very briefly at a party you wouldn't say "I know Andy Smith".

Amanda was introduced to Rudy once at a party, and that's as far as the evidence goes. Many people I have been introduced to at parties I would not say I know. Despite there being obvious media interest and police interest in the topic no further evidence of familiarity between Rudy and Amanda has ever emerged - the boys from the cottage below have not claimed Amanda knew Rudy, for example, and you would think they would know.

I think the likelihood that there is sooper sekrit evidence proving Amanda knew Rudy is about the same as the likelihood of the other sooper sekrit evidence known only to those present in court on the day proving Amanda was guilty existing. Which is to say, I think it's very highly unlikely and I put the idea down to wishful thinking.
 
full-fledged embraces

quadraginta said:
It's comments like this that cause me to wonder from time to time if I am reading the same threads as the people who make them.

I expect I'll get a detailed explanation about the use of the qualifier (i.e., weasel word) "few", but pretending that a constant overtone and occasionally a full-fledged embrace of xenophobia has not been an essential element of this case from the very beginning is laughable.
Click to expand...

Quadraginta,

My comment was about this thread and the previous one, not about the whole case. On the previous thread I gave an offhand comment listing both what I liked and disliked about the Italian system based on this case; IIRC, I gave three examples of each. Charlie Wilkes has noted that the prison in which Amanda is kept is more humane (my choice of words, not necessarily his) than a typical American prison. I am unaware of anything RoseMontague has said that is xenophobic. Other pro-innocence commenters are not even American, such as katody, KL, or LJ.

A different response to your question is to note that a full-fledged embrace of character assassination has been an essential element of this case from the very beginning. That is not accidental; "the quality of evidence is inversely proportional to the viciousness of the assaults on the accused characters" is a reasonable summary of the Duke lacrosse case (a touchstone for me). It works just fine for this case, as well.
 
Mary_H said:
If Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, it probably would have taken those who know their families only "a few short weeks" to figure it out, too.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that Casey Anthony must be guilty?

From what we know of the Anthony case, and we know one helluva lot, it would seem to me that the very same people who speak of "reasonable doubt" and "safe" convictions in the Knox case would be the very ones stalwartly protesting Anthony's unjust incarceration and the unfairness of the accusations placed against her. After all, she was charged with Murder One months before Caylee's remains were even found, and the ante got upped to the DP without enough of those remains to even hypothesize on cause of death.

The entire case is circumstantial. (Sound familiar?)

It remains to be seen how the trial will go, but the chances of Anthony escaping a conviction are slim to none.

Will you be agitating for her exoneration in that event? The sort of arguments used here to defend Knox are perfectly suited to such a task.
 
treehorn said:
Actually, I'm waiting to see how you're going to show that the evidence (cited above) supports your claim that Amanda did not know Rudy.
Click to expand...


You're not paying any attention to anybody, treehorn. Why don't we start this whole 12-hour session over by going back to the beginning. Remember this exchange?

Originally Posted by Mary_H
"Reporters came to Seattle after the arrest to try and dig the dirt. They couldn't find anybody to say anything bad about Amanda."

Originally Posted by treehorn
"They found a few (before the threat of defamation suits became SOP)."

And then I asked you to provide citations for both claims? Let's do that now.
 
quadraginta said:
Are you suggesting that Casey Anthony must be guilty?

From what we know of the Anthony case, and we know one helluva lot, it would seem to me that the very same people who speak of "reasonable doubt" and "safe" convictions in the Knox case would be the very ones stalwartly protesting Anthony's unjust incarceration and the unfairness of the accusations placed against her. After all, she was charged with Murder One months before Caylee's remains were even found, and the ante got upped to the DP without enough of those remains to even hypothesize on cause of death.

The entire case is circumstantial. (Sound familiar?)

It remains to be seen how the trial will go, but the chances of Anthony escaping a conviction are slim to none.

Will you be agitating for her exoneration in that event? The sort of arguments used here to defend Knox are perfectly suited to such a task.
Click to expand...


I have not followed the Casey Anthony case very closely. From what little I know about it, though, I know there is much less reasonable doubt surrounding the question of her guilt than there is surrounding the question of Amanda's.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Amanda was introduced to Rudy once at a party, and that's as far as the evidence goes. Many people I have been introduced to at parties I would not say I know. Despite there being obvious media interest and police interest in the topic no further evidence of familiarity between Rudy and Amanda has ever emerged - the boys from the cottage below have not claimed Amanda knew Rudy for example, and you would think they would know.
Click to expand...

Have you not read the Court's judgment?!

Page 41:

"Visiting the house...[Marco Marzan]...had seen Rudy there two or three times and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there, Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda."



PS Since you haven't read the judgment carefully, a little FYI: Marco is one of "the boys from the cottage below" (as you put it).


PPS How embarrassing.

In my world, you do THAT in front of a jury and you're out of a job, Kevin.
 
Last edited:
I get it! Special agent Kenneth Moore can spout as much rubbish as he likes, but can be forgiven for his mistakes. It doesn't stop him from being wheeled out by the Knox P.R. machine and allowed to spout yet more rubbish.

On the other hand Treehorn can attempt a rational discourse on this site and be attacked in a most disgusting manner by the likes of Kevin Turvey and the rest. For instance, they can keep on and on about what they perceive are his intentions in using the term "narcotics", they can totally ignore his explanation and then they have the nerve to suggest that he is banging on and wasting time.

One could conclude that they are a mischievous bunch, if one were not impressed by the impressive credentials that they have produced.
 
treehorn said:
Digression?

As can be deduced from the list, there are some pretty clear indications (to wit, "antisocial behaviors") that Knox and Sollecito were/ are not well from a medical point of view.
Click to expand...

This should be good. Citation please? To back up the claim that these are clear indications that they are not well from a medical point of view?

While I'm at it, do you need some sort of qualification to make such judgments, or is it okay for any old person to google "antisocial personality disorder symptoms" and make up their own mind about it?

(Also, is posting ill-formatted barrages of unsourced and sometimes wildly erroneous claims, with random bolding, along with grandiose claims to personal authority an indication of any mental pathology?).

Indeed, many of their behaviors appear to be consistent with the characteristics of a number of psychiatric conditions including, but not limited to, antisocial PD.
Click to expand...

This should be good too. What behaviours are you talking about? What behaviours consistent with antisocial personality disorder do Knox and Sollecito not exhibit? Citation please.

How is a discussion of this aspect of the case irrelevant to a determination not only of their factual guilt, but of their legal guilt?
Click to expand...

It's my contention that the available evidence about Knox and Sollecito's past and behaviour gives a rational person no significant reason to think it more likely that they teamed up with a local crook they didn't know to molest and murder a friend of theirs. The overwhelming majority of people who own a knife, read graphic comic books, smoke marijuana or watch one animal porn video once do not commit such murders, hence the evidentiary value of those behaviours is barely worth calculating.

Now if it turned out that Raffaele tortured cats and Amanda had a history of stealing and getting into fights that stretched back for years you might have something. You don't.
 
Kevin, you just died, ol' chap (Post 24428)

Why haven't you read the judgment?
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Steve Moore probably knows much more about the case now than he did when he first spoke out about it. He has given many interviews since his first one, and I presume he has been studying the case closely since then. There is no doubt he is aware of the criticism that has been leveled at him from PMF and TJMK.

You raise an interesting question, though. I wonder how much it matters if Steve Moore makes mistakes. The fact that he keeps getting invited back for more interviews tells me this is the angle the media now want to push, in part because they recognize that the majority of the American public want Amanda to be innocent.

It's anybody's guess how much research any of the journalists who have interviewed him have done; they could very well be mistaken about the facts, too. But how stupid do we think they are? Do we think they really are stupid enough -- all of them -- to be fooled by the Knox-Marriott PR Machine? Do we think they really cannot recognize -- all of them -- who are the nuts and who is rational?

According to the pro-guilt side, Steve Moore gets away with a lot of mistakes. Why haven't the colpevolisti dredged up some expert to debate him in public?
Click to expand...


The more time I have spent learning about the actual facts of sundry cases ... as opposed to the ways they are presented in the various media (with TV being the worst) ... the more certain I am that the lack of diligence on the reporters' part is challenged only by the degree of stupidity they attribute to their audiences. It's a toss-up which is worse.

I have seen many misrepresentations and outright falsehoods perpetuated in many cases, both to the detriment and to the advantage of the individuals under scrutiny.

Sensationalism sells papers. Facts are pesky things. Or perhaps... as the inestimable Ronald Reagan misquoted ... in the view of many crime story news presenters they are "stupid" things.

Your comment about reporters pushing what they think the public wants to hear is very insightful. It is often difficult to tease out the few fragments of fact that the body of many stories is built around. Often a single and unintentional mistake is amplified by incessant repetition simply because those reporters don't question their own sources with any greater diligence than their viewers question them. They hear what they want to hear, and select the content which seems to back that up. Finding out the entire body of detail behind any case is more work than they are usually willing to devote, and they rest easy in the justifiable belief that most of their listeners will not be any more diligent than they have been.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
This should be good. Citation please? To back up the claim that these are clear indications that they are not well from a medical point of view?

While I'm at it, do you need some sort of qualification to make such judgments, or is it okay for any old person to google "antisocial personality disorder symptoms" and make up their own mind about it?

(Also, is posting ill-formatted barrages of unsourced and sometimes wildly erroneous claims, with random bolding, along with grandiose claims to personal authority an indication of any mental pathology?).

This should be good too. What behaviours are you talking about? What behaviours consistent with antisocial personality disorder do Knox and Sollecito not exhibit? Citation please.
Click to expand...


No....please....I am begging you, Kevin, please don't ask him for these citations, unless you want to go round and round and round in the circle game. Here, I will save you the effort, treehorn:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6469320&postcount=12133

All junk, all debunked. Let's move on.
 
treehorn said:
Have you not read the Court's judgment?!

Page 41:

"Visiting the house...[Marco Marzan]...had seen Rudy there two or three times and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there, Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda."

PS Since you haven't read the judgment carefully, a little FYI: Marco is one of "the boys from the cottage below" (as you put it).

PPS How embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Okay, two or three times, fair enough.

Now are you going to respond to anything else that has been directed at you, or just try to skate away from it all and pretend it never happened?

In my world, you do THAT in front of a jury and you're out of a job, Kevin.
Click to expand...

Considering your recent record of factually false claims, is the claim above really reconcilable with the implied claim that you actually have a job?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
It's my contention that the available evidence about Knox and Sollecito's past and behaviour gives a rational person no significant reason to think it more likely that they teamed up with a local crook they didn't know to molest and murder a friend of theirs. The overwhelming majority of people who own a knife, read graphic comic books, smoke marijuana or watch one animal porn video once do not commit such murders, hence the evidentiary value of those behaviours is barely worth calculating.

Now if it turned out that Raffaele tortured cats and Amanda had a history of stealing and getting into fights that stretched back for years you might have something. You don't.
Click to expand...

There you go again.

"...a crook they did not know..."

Did you ever really read the Court's ratio, Kevin?
 
quadraginta said:
<snip>
Your comment about reporters pushing what they think the public wants to hear is very insightful. It is often difficult to tease out the few fragments of fact that the body of many stories is built around. Often a single and unintentional mistake is amplified by incessant repetition simply because those reporters don't question their own sources with any greater diligence than their viewers question them. They hear what they want to hear, and select the content which seems to back that up. Finding out the entire body of detail behind any case is more work than they are usually willing to devote, and they rest easy in the justifiable belief that most of their listeners will not be any more diligent than they have been.
Click to expand...


I am sure you are correct. Your last paragraph also applies well to non-reporters who have not familiarized themselves enough with the details of this case.
 
treehorn said:
Have you not read the Court's judgment?!

Page 41:

"Visiting the house...[Marco Marzan]...had seen Rudy there two or three times and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there, Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda."



PS Since you haven't read the judgment carefully, a little FYI: Marco is one of "the boys from the cottage below" (as you put it).


PPS How embarrassing.

In my world, you do THAT in front of a jury and you're out of a job, Kevin.
Click to expand...

PS Since you haven't read the judgement carefully, a little FYI: Marco is NOT one of "the boys from the cottage below". He's a basketball-playing acquaintance of Guede's, who testified that he (Marco) had visited the boys' cottage at the same time as Guede.

PPS How embarrassing.
 
treehorn said:
There you go again.

"...a crook they did not know..."

Did you ever really read the Court's ratio, Kevin?
Click to expand...

"Ratio". Do you think that using arcane legal terms such as "ratio" (or "ratio decidendi", to give it its proper name) or "adduced" give you added gravitas? You can write all your posts in Latin if you like, if it works for you. But if you want people to actually understand what you're writing, it's probably better to use terms that are in common usage. Just sayin' :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom