Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Well there is nothing like some poisoning of the well, a few good strawmen, all topped off with an ad homemin or two before any testimony even occurs to make sure that whatever a person says that you can write it off via one or more of the previous fallacies and thus remain firmly attached to your own beliefs on the matter.

My God is truth, logic and natural rights. Justinian maxims are also part of my belief system.

My anti-God would then be the belief system that has persecuted Amanda Knox and her family.

And the minions of my anti-God would be the posters at the PMF and TJMK and the cop roaches.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The summary led to the guilty decision. Yet you seem to have access to information that leads to another conclusion. Fair enough. I don't accept your conclusion.

I'm not asking you to accept my conclusion, in fact if you did that you'd just be swapping one person telling you want to believe for another. I want you to think about what you believe and why you believe it, then read up on the evidence and learn it for yourself. If you don't understand something go and look it up in a book or a journal or even in the internet if you can find a reliable site. Learn and come to a conclusion based on your own learning. Don't accept what LondonJohn says, or Bruce Fisher, or Alt-F4, or those that write at PMF or TJMK or any of the other places. Look at them sure, note their questions sure, but then go and find out the answers yourself and see who is telling the truth and who isn't.

At that point you can start thinking for yourself and determine how the evidence stands up, whether it really meets the standard of proving the Prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Only when you have done that should you really make up your mind. Then if you still think AK and RS are guilty, at least you'll have the evidence to back up your statement.

At the moment I am still looking through the evidence. I'd love someone that knows the guilt side better to help with that, but no one is volunteering on that one, and the fact that I can't pin down a timeline of the murder that makes sense based on the prosecution's claims is extremely troubling to me, hence why I still side with innocent. If these things get resolved for me to the point where I have no more reasonable doubts, I'll happily go with guilty.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm not asking you to accept my conclusion, in fact if you did that you'd just be swapping one person telling you want to believe for another. I want you to think about what you believe and why you believe it, then read up on the evidence and learn it for yourself. If you don't understand something go and look it up in a book or a journal or even in the internet if you can find a reliable site. Learn and come to a conclusion based on your own learning. Don't accept what LondonJohn says, or Bruce Fisher, or Alt-F4, or those that write at PMF or TJMK or any of the other places. Look at them sure, note their questions sure, but then go and find out the answers yourself and see who is telling the truth and who isn't.

You're asking a lot ..... of lionking.

 

[lionking]

Phantom Wolf
A couple of points. I have read several books on this case. Secondly, I don't need to be lectured about what I need to do to make up my mind.

 

[PhantomWolf]

My God is truth, logic and natural rights.

there are no such thing as natural rights.

 

[lionking]

You're asking a lot ..... of lionking.

Reverting to ad homs. Good show.

 

[shuttlt]

It's a pity that nothing has come to light that, in and of itself, is incompatible with guilt. A lot of miscarriages of justice that come to light seem to turn on the discovery of an alibi, or the identification of the real killer (perhaps those are just the ones that get turned into TV movies). I take it the reanalysis of the hard disk/screensaver logs didn't live up to the hype?

 

[PhantomWolf]

A couple of points. I have read several books on this case.

Which are just someone else's opinion on the case. When are you going to stop accepting other people's opinions?

Secondly, I don't need to be lectured about what I need to do to make up my mind.

Obviously you do because you are resistant to doing it.

 

[lionking]

Which are just someone else's opinion on the case. When are you going to stop accepting other people's opinions?



Obviously you do because you are resistant to doing it.

So you have read nothing other than court transcripts, unfiltered by commentary? Yeah, sure.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's a pity that nothing has come to light that, in and of itself, is incompatible with guilt. A lot of miscarriages of justice that come to light seem to turn on the discovery of an alibi, or the identification of the real killer (perhaps those are just the ones that get turned into TV movies). I take it the reanalysis of the hard disk/screensaver logs didn't live up to the hype?

We'll have to see as the appeal progresses. The rumors are that the reanalysis shows human activity on the computer up until 6am, and there is still the TOD issue which could show that Meredith died while AK and RS were still at his house even according to the prosecution. Either of these things being shown as fact would put a serious dent in the prosecution's claims.

 

[shuttlt]

We'll have to see as the appeal progresses. The rumors are that the reanalysis shows human activity on the computer up until 6am, and there is still the TOD issue which could show that Meredith died while AK and RS were still at his house even according to the prosecution. Either of these things being shown as fact would put a serious dent in the prosecution's claims.

So all of that's on hold? OK.

Has nobody clarified how the reanalysis shows human activity? When I last read up on it it was just that the screensaver didn't activate for a long while, but that this could have been due to all sorts of reasons other than a human sitting in front of the computer.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So you have read nothing other than court transcripts, unfiltered by commentary? Yeah, sure.

I didn't say that, I said I don't base my beliefs on what they say, I evalute them and if I think they have valid points or questions, I go and look up the answers from elsewhere and make sure what they say matches other non-AK case sources.

 

[Justinian2]

there are no such thing as natural rights.

I believe it is my natural right to breath and eat. More broadly speaking my natural rights include the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

My natural rights also include the rights to enjoy sex, own property, speak freely and to not listen.

A natural right is anything fundamental to existence.

It is a natural right to sleep.

It is a natural right not to go to school too, but tell that to the truant officer.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So all of that's on hold? OK.

Unlike most countries, it seems that the Italian courts are rather slow, though I wouldn't say it's on hold, they just seem to have it one day at a time every few weeks.

Has nobody clarified how the reanalysis shows human activity? When I last read up on it it was just that the screensaver didn't activate for a long while, but that this could have been due to all sorts of reasons other than a human sitting in front of the computer.

Until the report is presented in court it's speculation that has been reported as probable. When it is, I'm sure they will explain why they believe it was human activity. It is possible it could be scripted but I suspect that would be detectable. I'm not sure what other ways would deactivate a screen saver shortly after it came on then without leaving an obvious pattern.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I believe it is my natural right to breath and eat. More broadly speaking my natural rights include the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

My natural rights also include the rights to enjoy sex, own property, speak freely and to not listen.

A natural right is anything fundamental to existence.

It is a natural right to sleep.

It is a natural right not to go to school too, but tell that to the truant officer.

You might believe that, but it's not true, these things have been granted to you by society.

 

[yeti101]

well i'm on the fence pending my own further investigation

there's a lot of contradictory info about this case being proposed by both sides. One thing i thought would be reliable was the computer records. Do we have those to view ourselves

 

[PhantomWolf]

well i'm on the fence pending my own further investigation

Similar to where I am then, which technically means that you are on the not-guilty side because you have reasonable doubt still. Note I'm not saying innocent, as I personally am not sure there is evidence to prove that yet.

there's a lot of contradictory info about this case being proposed by both sides. One thing i thought would be reliable was the computer records. Do we have those to view ourselves

There is, which is why it's a case of going to outside sources to try and make sense of a lot of it to see who is telling the truth.

One the computer records, I haven't seen anyone displaying them, I suspect that we'll have to wait until they are presented to the courts.

 

[shuttlt]

One the computer records, I haven't seen anyone displaying them, I suspect that we'll have to wait until they are presented to the courts.

Didn't Dan O. have a copy of the screensaver logs? I remember seeing them posted, but haven't been able to relocate them.

 

[Diocletus]

As the fog lifts, it will be interesting to get more details about yesterday's hearing.

The reports that I have seen so far indicate a couple of things occurring. There was talk about Stefanoni's "raw data" and there was also talk about information relating to the collection of the knife.

On first glance, it seemed to me that if the independent experts were focusing on the knife collection procedures, then this would imply that the underlying DNA test had been validated and therefore as far as the experts were concerned, Kercher's DNA was on the knife.

But, when I go back and look at timing issues, Stefanoni apparently provided the experts with a raw data "dump" only last week. Therefore, this evidence cannot have been reviewed yet. This indicates that the experts have been following a dual-track investigation process all along. The raw data and the knife handling information must have both been requested months ago, perhaps simultaneously. I will be trying to piece together more details on the specific timing of this.

Probably not coincidentally, Napoleoni and Stefanoni it appears both produced their data (knife handling and raw data, respectively) on the eve of the last trial. This suggests to me that the release was coordinated centrally (by the prosecutor?) who perhaps realized the gravity of all of this evidence withholding and stepped in and directed them to get this done before this weekend's hearing, or surely, Hellmann would have taken action to compel this information.

 

[pilot padron]

Tiny points and surprises

You seem to be missing the point, pilot. (No surprise there!).

Can you demonstrate that the interpretation of "maximum cooperation" you believe in is to be preferred to the one Barbie Latza Nadeau has written about?

Per haps the 'point' in your, very short, usual one sentence 'argument' was so miniscule and/or irrelevant that it was very easily and/or understandably 'missed' ??

If I may repeat your opinionated and borderline ad hom addendum...."(No surprise there)" either