Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

That's in a court of law, not an Internet forum. You can still have a small amount of doubt and believe in guilt. Prove me wrong.

No, I can't prove you wrong. It is indeed perfectly possible to express oneself irrationally and to apply poor logic when one is merely writing on an internet forum. Look:

The moon is made of Swiss cheese, and is around 20 miles high in the sky. I have personally seen cows jumping over it.

See! I said it on an internet forum!

 

[lionking]

No, I can't prove you wrong. It is indeed perfectly possible to express oneself irrationally and to apply poor logic when one is merely writing on an internet forum. Look:

The moon is made of Swiss cheese, and is around 20 miles high in the sky. I have personally seen cows jumping over it.

See! I said it on an internet forum!

Completely missing my point that one doesn't have to apply the "beyond reasonable doubt" principal on an internet forum.

 

[LondonJohn]

Completely missing my point that one doesn't have to apply the "beyond reasonable doubt" principal on an internet forum.

One doesn't have to do anything on an internet forum (apart from abide by the MA). But if one wants to have a reasonable discussion about a criminal case, then one has to apply the standards that matter in a court of law.

It's entirely possible for someone to write on this forum (or any other) that they have doubt about whether Knox or Sollecito committed this murder, but that they believe the convictions to be safe nonetheless. It's perfectly possible to write that and to believe it. It's just not logical or particularly intelligent, that's all...

 

[LondonJohn]

And, by the way, it's actually entirely fair and logical to take a position along the following lines: "I think that Knox and Sollecito probably did commit these murders, but I have some doubt about it so I think that they were wrongly convicted".

That's not how I feel about this particular case, but it's a perfectly proper position to take. In fact, it's what I believe about Barry George in the Jill Dando murder case.

 

[Chris C]

I think the biggest problem(evidence wise) with this case is the prosecution didn't bother trying to verify if any of the evidence was even related to the murder. Everytime they found something odd, they just added it to the list and tried to use it as proof of guilt. Perfect example are the luminol prints.
No evidence has been presented to show if they were made with blood or not. Just speculation
No evidence has been presented to show who left them on the floor. Just speculation
No evidence has been presented to show when they were left on the floor. Just speculation.

Everyone knows luminol is very sensitive. Luminol can detect traces of blood that are years old, even if they have been cleaned up. Thats what the dna confirmatory tests are for. Which basicly means there is no way of knowing if those footprints are even related to the crime scene or if they where even made with blood.

 

[lionking]

But if one wants to have a reasonable discussion about a criminal case, then one has to apply the standards that matter in a court of law.

Why? I could show you many threads here where people have said "this might have been found beyond reasonable doubt, but I don't believe it". This thread is just one of many. People can sit on a fence as much as they want without having their position ridiculed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why? I could show you many threads here where people have said "this might have been found beyond reasonable doubt, but I don't believe it". This thread is just one of many. People can sit on a fence as much as they want without having their position ridiculed.

You've just created a strawman. It's a totally different situation for someone to say "this might have been found beyond reasonable doubt, but I don't believe it" than for someone to say "I have doubts about whether the person committed the crime, but I agree that they should have been convicted of it".

The first quote may mean that the poster believes the court to have made an error in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (a situation which demonstrably occurs from time to time), so it may well be based in sound logic and good reasoning. The second quote, however, has an internal contradiction which is impossible to resolve. It therefore has no value or logic in and of itself.

It's not about "ridiculing" others for saying that they believe there's doubt about Knox's/Sollecito's involvement but that they believe the convictions to be correct nonetheless. I think you might need to look to another forum if it's ridicule you're after. But if people take the above position, then it's fairly clear that either they don't understand the modern criminal justice system (and associated burden of proof), or that they are allowing emotion or wooly thinking to overcome logic and critical reasoning.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I am hoping that Pilot or anyone else here that also posts on PMF can relay a message. As everyone knows, I am not welcome at PMF. SomeAlibi has called out his detractors as cowards. I would like to set up a discussion thread on the IIP forum so I can have a one on one discussion with him. I am hopeful that we can discuss issues as adults. If SomeAlibi is interested in having this discussion please ask him to send me an email injusticeinperugia@yahoo.com. The discussion would be available online for all to read. He is asking questions and I would like the opportunity to provide answers. If SomeAlibi would like to have a discussion on another forum I would be happy to do that also.

If you want a neutral setting, then feel free to use my debate forum (linked in sig), I can easily set up a Justice based section for the debate.

 

[Antony]

Antony if the shoe was on the other foot would you be prepared to sit down and put together an exhaustive narrative or timeline, such as the one DanO did for the innocence side? It's a rather time consuming venture and I'm not surprised only a couple of people have ever done one.

If the shoe was on the other foot and I felt unable to provide a sequence of events that conformed with my belief about the verdict, I think I would have to rethink my position.

The point is that the side arguing for innocence can provide a sequence of events that conforms to the evidence (which is that Rudy Guede committed the crime on his own between 9pm and 9:30pm, and left the cottage taking Meredith's phones with him around 10pm), while the pro-guilt side can't or won't provide anything equivalent which implicates Amanda and Raffaele. When they attempt something to accommodate a particular piece of evidence which happens to be under discussion, they can't agree with each other or with the verdict of the court.

I've never been that interested in convincing others of guilt, which would have to be the prime motivation for doing either one. In fact I've never described myself as a confirmed guilter. I have seen both sides and can say I am still somewhat on the fence.

I have become aware that your position has softened considerably in the past weeks or months. The reason I asked is that you have previously expressed very much stronger opinions of guilt.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you want a neutral setting, then feel free to use my debate forum (linked in sig), I can easily set up a Justice based section for the debate.

Edited because straying off-topic....

It would be interesting to see a pro-guilt position laid out in light of the latest developments in Curatolo's credibility and the DNA retesting.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If you want a neutral setting, then feel free to use my debate forum (linked in sig), I can easily set up a Justice based section for the debate.

No worries, SomeAlibi has bought into every lie put forth about me and refuses to have a discussion. Somehow in his view, that makes me the coward. I planned on having a calm discussion one one one with no distraction. He doesn't want to do that because the truth would be exposed in that setting.

Thank you for your offer.

 

[LondonJohn]

Question: why is there such uproar about the wikipedia article on The Murder of Meredith Kercher? While I'd obviously agree that the article was (up until recently) very one-sided in its POV, I'd make three observations:

1) The English-language article is very unlikely indeed to have any impact on anyone connected to the criminal trial - particularly anyone Italian;

2) Anyone based in an English-speaking country who reads the article is likely to be - at worst - only temporarily misled if the article is unfairly biased against Knox and Sollecito, because.......

3) If (when) Knox and Sollecito are acquitted on appeal later this year, the article will be able to be updated very quickly to reflect the new position - therefore Knox's and Sollecito's reputations are unlikely to remain damaged by the wikipedia article for very long if they are cleared on appeal.

I think the letter to wikipedia pointing out the bias in the article (pre-March 2011) and clarifying the differences in the Italian criminal justice system (including the presumption of innocence until the end of the appeal process) was right and proper. But I'm far less sure about the subsequent battle. Of course, the reactions of some of the pro-guilt characters is near-hysterical and verging on paranoid, including one who seems to post updates on the situation almost every day...

But I'd argue that, come September/October of this year, the true story of the case will be able to be told in all its astonishing detail on wikipedia, for all English-speaking people across the world to read. What the article says between then and now is - to me - only of marginal significance.

 

[snook1]

No worries, SomeAlibi has bought into every lie put forth about me and refuses to have a discussion. Somehow in his view, that makes me the coward. I planned on having a calm discussion one one one with no distraction. He doesn't want to do that because the truth would be exposed in that setting.

Thank you for your offer.

Why do you even bother? I mean, SA isn't worth it. I gave up long time ago...

 

[spartacus]

what about the Italian wikipedia? Is it worth fighting over that? It seems like it presents mainly the bogus reconstruction of Mignini.

 

[LondonJohn]

what about the Italian wikipedia? Is it worth fighting over that? It seems like it presents mainly the bogus reconstruction of Mignini.

Yes, I'd certainly think that monitoring the Italian wikipedia is more relevant, since the judicial panel pool is clearly more likely to be exposed to that. But the lay members of the judicial panel in the appeal trial have to be educated to a higher level than their counterparts in the first trial, so hopefully they will be less likely to be swayed by popular media (not that I'm suggesting that the lay jurors in the first trial actually allowed themselves to be influenced in this way).

I'd still argue, though, that the current nature of the wikipedia articles - in any language - is less relevant. Provided the appeal trial is properly conducted, wikipedia around the world will soon contain an updated account of the case and the fates of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Why do you even bother? I mean, SA isn't worth it. I gave up long time ago...

I didn't expect the conversation to take place. SA called his detractors cowards for not responding to his rant. I was just making it clear that I will discuss the case with anyone.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Question: why is there such uproar about the wikipedia article on The Murder of Meredith Kercher? While I'd obviously agree that the article was (up until recently) very one-sided in its POV, I'd make three observations:

1) The English-language article is very unlikely indeed to have any impact on anyone connected to the criminal trial - particularly anyone Italian;

2) Anyone based in an English-speaking country who reads the article is likely to be - at worst - only temporarily misled if the article is unfairly biased against Knox and Sollecito, because.......

3) If (when) Knox and Sollecito are acquitted on appeal later this year, the article will be able to be updated very quickly to reflect the new position - therefore Knox's and Sollecito's reputations are unlikely to remain damaged by the wikipedia article for very long if they are cleared on appeal.

I think the letter to wikipedia pointing out the bias in the article (pre-March 2011) and clarifying the differences in the Italian criminal justice system (including the presumption of innocence until the end of the appeal process) was right and proper. But I'm far less sure about the subsequent battle. Of course, the reactions of some of the pro-guilt characters is near-hysterical and verging on paranoid, including one who seems to post updates on the situation almost every day...

But I'd argue that, come September/October of this year, the true story of the case will be able to be told in all its astonishing detail on wikipedia, for all English-speaking people across the world to read. What the article says between then and now is - to me - only of marginal significance.

I think it's important for misinformation regarding this case to be challenged no matter where it's presented. Wikipedia hits the top of Google searches in nearly every category. Many look to Wikipedia for information. I agree with you that Wikipedia around the world will eventually give an accurate account.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't expect the conversation to take place. SA called his detractors cowards for not responding to his rant. I was just making it clear that I will discuss the case with anyone.

Yes: I can only see one side of the debate staying within its walled fortress right now, as events close in upon them. With apologies to American members, it's somewhat reminiscent of the Alamo...

I'd love to know what most pro-guilt posters from within the fortress believe is the time that Meredith died on 1st November 2007. I'd love for some of them to visit here and state their opinion on this issue (and many others), to debate how they come to that conclusion and to reconcile it with their ongoing belief in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt in law. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[jj]

I don't think I've pointed this out, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but outside of the big cities, Americans aren't real popular in Italy, and there is a lot of "interesting" sentiment from the local police. She was held without being able to contact embassy, etc, for quite a while, by the way, or so I'm told, in abrogation of the treaty-established diplomatic practice.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0808-04.htm

Yeah, it's a somewhat biased source, but as it happens, I know this young lady, who is a devout Quaker and a "lie down and die instead of fight" pacifist (or at least used to be that). Her "crime" was that she owned a black bra, and so the police assert that means she's part of some kind of "black somethingorother" terrorist group.

Take it how thou wilt, and I know zero about the Amanda Knox affair, but I have no reason to trust local officials based on what I do know.

For the record, this is finally over. When this finally, after many years, and at least one change in prosecutor, went to the prosecutor and judge for a decision of "prosecute or not" (the prosecutor and judge in Italy act much as the grand jury does in the USA), based on the fact it had been pending for years, it was immediately thrown out.

So I'm told the person involved regards it as over. This is after substantial expense, some personal injury to the person, a few nights in the hospital, quite some time in a jail without access to council, interrogations, forced to assume "stress positions", etc.

I presume recovery for this is out of the question, but I don't know for sure.

I just mention this to be clear that the issue was finally resolved.

 

[Kestrel]

I think it's important for misinformation regarding this case to be challenged no matter where it's presented. Wikipedia hits the top of Google searches in nearly every category. Many look to Wikipedia for information. I agree with you that Wikipedia around the world will eventually give an accurate account.

For a long time, the Wikipedia article simply echoed the lies about the case that were printed in early tabloid reports. Even today, the rules for what is considered a "reliable source" by Wikipedia get in the way of an accurate account of what is known about the case. Many of the reporters left after Amanda testified. Only fragments of the long detailed debunking of the prosecution's case by the defense showed up in the newspapers.

Some Knox supporters working on the Wikipedia page are not really helping her cause. They don't understand the necessity of finding sources to back up a change in the text. Or the importance of sticking to the neutral language of an encyclopedia.