Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, that is the only thing a Foaker can say about this, but in reality, he has a lot to gain by telling the truth if that were the truth, parole boards do not frown on the truth, what reason could he possibly have for having two innocent people convicted of a crime they didn't commit - sure he had something to gain while his trial and appeals were going on, but not now that it's over. He won't get his sentence increased, people will not think less of him than they already do and again, it will not hurt any parole hearings he has in the future.

There's an element of doublethink here.

Parole boards like the truth, so Rudy should tell the truth, so Rudy has told the truth, so Amanda and Raffaele did it... where's the hole in the logic?

Well, two holes leap out immediately. One, parole boards aren't omniscient and the guilter community is living proof that many people who are quite capable of performing everyday tasks like making a sandwich or posting to a web forum can also be convinced that Amanda and Raffaele did it. Hence it's not a given that a parole board automatically knows what the truth is.

Secondly, parole boards might not like lone wolves who stab women in the neck and then rape them as they die. So just maybe admitting the truth, if that is the truth, would not work in Guede's favour? Do you think that could possibly be the case Sherlock?

It really does look to me that once again you are reasoning backwards from a conclusion you like to premises that support that conclusion (but make no sense). Proper logic goes the other way, from well-supported premises to inescapable conclusions.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

My recollection is that Justinian said something very similar

My reaction is that it's revealing how the guilters have to cherry-pick the least rational things said by the most emotionally committed pro-innocence posters to find anything to talk about. Whereas they run a mile to avoid engaging with the best version of the pro-innocence case.

Why do you think that is, Lionking?

Meanwhile the pro-innocence community is quite happy to tackle the best version of the pro-guilt case head on, only we have this curious problem... it's like pulling teeth to try to get the guilters to even say what they think the best version of the pro-guilt case is.

 

[Morse]

I think what's also been confused is that lots of people have stated that they will 100% believe in innocence regardless of the VERDICT. (Assuming no new evidence is introduced).

This is of course different from belief that they are innocent despite all evidence.

 

[Antony]

My reaction is that it's revealing how the guilters have to cherry-pick the least rational things said by the most emotionally committed pro-innocence posters to find anything to talk about. Whereas they run a mile to avoid engaging with the best version of the pro-innocence case.

Why do you think that is, Lionking?

Meanwhile the pro-innocence community is quite happy to tackle the best version of the pro-guilt case head on, only we have this curious problem... it's like pulling teeth to try to get the guilters to even say what they think the best version of the pro-guilt case is.

Brilliant, concise and cogent.

My impression is that the show-stopping pro-guilt argument is this: Amanda and Raffaele were convicted of murder in a court of law, and the verdict was unanimous. Lionking himself has stated that he will change his opinion of guilt if the appeal court overturns the original verdict.

 

[Antony]

There's an element of doublethink here.

Parole boards like the truth, so Rudy should tell the truth, so Rudy has told the truth, so Amanda and Raffaele did it... where's the hole in the logic?

Well, two holes leap out immediately. One, parole boards aren't omniscient and the guilter community is living proof that many people who are quite capable of performing everyday tasks like making a sandwich or posting to a web forum can also be convinced that Amanda and Raffaele did it. Hence it's not a given that a parole board automatically knows what the truth is.

Secondly, parole boards might not like lone wolves who stab women in the neck and then rape them as they die. So just maybe admitting the truth, if that is the truth, would not work in Guede's favour? Do you think that could possibly be the case Sherlock?

It really does look to me that once again you are reasoning backwards from a conclusion you like to premises that support that conclusion (but make no sense). Proper logic goes the other way, from well-supported premises to inescapable conclusions.

Of course, when we say "parole boards like the truth", what we mean is "parole boards like prison inmates to agree with the courts". One of the problems faced by wrongly-convicted people is that in order to get parole they have to admit their guilt and show remorse. Of course innocent people are usually not prepared to do that, so they continue to sit in jail long after their rightly-convicted co-inmates are released.

It's definitely not in Guede's interest to alienate the parole board by going against the verdict of his own trial. The only hope of him doing that IMO is to a journalist years after being released.

 

[lionking]

Lionking himself has stated that he will change his opinion of guilt if the appeal court overturns the original verdict.

Correct. I doubt this will be necessary though. I don't believe in a conspiracy of police, forensic scientists and prosecutors.

 

[Antony]

Correct. I doubt this will be necessary though. I don't believe in a conspiracy of police, forensic scientists and prosecutors.

Ah ... right. A glimmer of rationale for the idea that the courts are automatically right, and an opinion about what the next court will decide.

Not many pro-innocent posters are using the word "conspiracy", though - as the investigators' conduct has been too chaotic to suggest that. What about all the events showing that they lied, destroyed evidence, concealed evidence, fabricated evidence, and misrepresented evidence, Lionking?

 

[lionking]

Ah ... right. A glimmer of rationale for the idea that the courts are automatically right, and an opinion about what the next court will decide.

Not many pro-innocent posters are using the word "conspiracy", though - as the investigators' conduct has been too chaotic to suggest that. What about all the events showing that they lied, destroyed evidence, concealed evidence, fabricated evidence, and misrepresented evidence, Lionking?

"Events"? Very amusing.

 

[Justinian2]

From "The Monster ..."

The Monster was expecially welcomed by anonymous, Internet hate mongers who have formed a tiny army of tiny people posting lies, distortions, and half-truths on every article that can be so soiled.

I can vouch for that, as it took me a year to find a forum that didn't ban me (in a very hostile way) for my support of Amanda. I had the feeling that the sites were orchestrated because they were so robotic and similar in their responses and thinking.

"The Monster of Perugia" addresses the why behind the attacks on Amanda. That's why I enjoyed reading it.

 

[RoseMontague]

The latest on the Sarah Scazzi case and it continues the way of the Kercher murder case. The police are just not satisfied that they have the obvious killer, Michele Misseri, father of Sabrinia Misseri who is the cousin of Sarah Scazzi. First they coerced a false accusation by Michele that his daughter was the killer then ignored his recantation of the false accusation and Sabrina is still in jail. Still that is not enough it seems as they have found DNA in the garage where Sarah was killed as well as DNA on the cell phone. The friend of Sarah and Sabrina, Ivan Russo, who the media has tried to portray as a point of jealousy between the two cousins has now been called in to give DNA samples as well as the brother and nephew of the father, Michele (the lone wolf killer).

If two innocent kids go to trial for this (Sabrina and Ivan), while Michele takes a fast track and gets a reduced sentence, do not be surprised, do not adjust your set, it is simply a rerun of a very popular media show in Italy.

http://translate.google.com/transla...a-per-ivano-russo-e-cosima-serrano-63574.html

 

[Magister]

corrected post

 

[pilot padron]

My recollection is that Justinian said something very similar

My reaction is that it's revealing how the guilters have to cherry-pick the least rational things said by the most emotionally committed pro-innocence posters to find anything to talk about.

Do I have this correct ????

Your somewhat demeaning reactionary characterization from 'on high' of Justinian is that he is your "most emotionally committed" and therefore "least rational" pro innocence compatriot ??

Really, now ???

With friends like this, who does need enemies ??

 

[lane99]

...if she really had nothing to do with it, he would have said so, especially now that his trials are over.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the best that can be said is your argument is embarrassingly naive.

Arthur Conan Doyle must be halfway to China by now.

 

[RoseMontague]

Do I have this correct ????

Your somewhat demeaning reactionary characterization from 'on high' of Justinian is that he is your "most emotionally committed" and therefore "least rational" pro innocence compatriot ??

Really, now ???

With friends like this, who does need enemies ??

I actually think Kevin, LJ, and MaryH have been cherry-picked on more than Justinian. It is easy to pick one post to make fun of and then ascribe that post to a group as a whole. I think the reasons for picking a post to pick on vary.

 

[Draca]

The latest on the Sarah Scazzi case and it continues the way of the Kercher murder case. The police are just not satisfied that they have the obvious killer, Michele Misseri, father of Sabrinia Misseri who is the cousin of Sarah Scazzi. First they coerced a false accusation by Michele that his daughter was the killer then ignored his recantation of the false accusation and Sabrina is still in jail. Still that is not enough it seems as they have found DNA in the garage where Sarah was killed as well as DNA on the cell phone. The friend of Sarah and Sabrina, Ivan Russo, who the media has tried to portray as a point of jealousy between the two cousins has now been called in to give DNA samples as well as the brother and nephew of the father, Michele (the lone wolf killer).

If two innocent kids go to trial for this (Sabrina and Ivan), while Michele takes a fast track and gets a reduced sentence, do not be surprised, do not adjust your set, it is simply a rerun of a very popular media show in Italy.

http://translate.google.com/transla...a-per-ivano-russo-e-cosima-serrano-63574.html

Fascinating. You would think this case would be extremely rare but it seems to be a pattern instead. Narducci, Knox, Scazzi - how many other cases are twisted and contorted beyone evidence?

What is leading to this?

 

[platonov]

mea culpa

My reaction is that it's revealing how the guilters have to cherry-pick the least rational things said by the most emotionally committed pro-innocence posters to find anything to talk about. Whereas they run a mile to avoid engaging with the best version of the pro-innocence case.

Why do you think that is, Lionking?

Meanwhile the pro-innocence community is quite happy to tackle the best version of the pro-guilt case head on, only we have this curious problem... it's like pulling teeth to try to get the guilters to even say what they think the best version of the pro-guilt case is.

I don't think cherry picking is accurate but I will admit I tended to concentrate on the arguments put forward by yourself, London John, halides1, Dan O, Justinian, Kaosium and a couple of others while generally ignoring the more rigorous and intellectually defensible ideas of Withnail, katy_did, Chris C, Supernaut, Bruce Fisher and billyryan.

Is this what you are referring to ?

In my defence its not just that your arguments are risible, ill informed, often mendacious & are easy to pick apart but its fun also - and their repetitive nature meant I could often link back to the previous instances.

ps Actually it wasn't always easy to tell the 'groups' apart so perhaps my choices were more subjective than I am aware.

 

[Draca]

Innocence Network going International

Great photo from Innocence Conference.
Maybe Amanda and Raffaele will be at the conference next year.

"Today wrongful conviction exonerees from five different countries shared thier stories on stage at the 2011 International Innocence Network conference. There has never been a photograph like this.

Left to right: José Antonio Zuñiga (México), Eric Volz (Nicaragua), Toshikazu Sugaya (Japan), Ron Dalton (Canada), Gerard Patrick Conlon (Ireland) & Sarah Shourd (Iran)"


http://www.friendsofericvolz.com/home/2011/4/9/innocence-network-going-international.html

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think cherry picking is accurate but I will admit I tended to concentrate on the arguments put forward by yourself, London John, halides1, Dan O, Justinian, Kaosium and a couple of others while generally ignoring the more rigorous and intellectually defensible ideas of Withnail, katy_did, Chris C, Supernaut, Bruce Fisher and billyryan.

Is this what you are referring to ?

In my defence its not just that your arguments are risible, ill informed, often mendacious & are easy to pick apart but its fun also - and their repetitive nature meant I could often link back to the previous instances.

ps Actually it wasn't always easy to tell the 'groups' apart so perhaps my choices were more subjective than I am aware.

I tend to concentrate on the arguments for guilt as presented by quadraginta and lionking, although I focus on many of your fine arguments for guilt as well.

In my defense I find myself agreeing with pilot padron more often than not.
Wow, just go figure.

 

[Antony]

"Events"? Very amusing.

So ... are you going to answer the question?

You doubt that the verdict will be overturned because you can't believe in a police "conspiracy". Exactly why is police misconduct less plausible than the fantasy crime narrative put forward by the prosecution? What would it take to convince you that there was police misconduct, on top of their misdeeds so far?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What would it take to convince you that there was police misconduct, on top of their misdeeds so far?

Has police misconduct and or misdeeds been raised in either defence submissions or are you expressing an opinion?

Has any police officer or forensic officer been disciplined in connection to the investigation or trial?